Flores v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60747 Document: 00515817888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 12, 2021
No. 19-60747
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Juan Ricardo Flores,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A215 684 863
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Ricardo Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and denying his request to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60747 Document: 00515817888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2021
No. 19-60747
remand the proceeding so that he could propose additional particular social
groups. Because Flores does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that he
waived his right to apply for asylum and that he was provided an opportunity
to present evidence in support of his application, he has abandoned these
claims. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Flores
was not entitled to withholding of removal. An applicant is entitled to
withholding of removal if he shows that it is more likely than not that he will
be persecuted on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). “A
particular social group must: (1) consist of persons who share a common
immutable characteristic; (2) be defined with particularity; and (3) be socially
visible or distinct within the society in question.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938
F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Flores failed to offer any evidence
that his immediate family is perceived as a distinct group within Mexican
society, the BIA did not err in determining that his proposed social group was
not cognizable. See Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th
Cir. 2016).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Flores
was not entitled to protection under the CAT because he failed to offer any
evidence that public officials have participated in, consented to, or willfully
ignored gang violence. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th
Cir. 2015).
2
Case: 19-60747 Document: 00515817888 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2021
No. 19-60747
We review the denial of a remand for an abuse of discretion. Milat
v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores’s request for a
remand. Flores argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his
request for a remand because his pro se status prevented him from
understanding the legal requirements for defining a particular social group.
Specifically, he asserts that with the assistance of counsel he would have also
claimed membership in the particular social groups consisting of “family
members of police officers,” “family members of victims murdered by
cartels,” and “family members of Jamie Flores.” However, because Flores
failed to identify any additional evidence that he would present on remand
and because his testimony merely showed that his family was subjected to
general criminal activity, he is unable to demonstrate any connection between
his additionally proposed groups and any feared harm.
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED.
3