Taylor v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60342 Document: 00516791595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60342 FILED
Summary Calendar June 19, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Andre Oneil Taylor,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A088 935 690
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Andre Oneil Taylor, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and
_____________________
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 22-60342 Document: 00516791595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
No. 22-60342
ordering him removed. We review the denial of CAT claims for substantial
evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to
this standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
“compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Taylor has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he showed Jamaican officials
would acquiesce in his torture if he were repatriated. See id.; Qorane v. Barr,
919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343,
351 (5th Cir. 2006). Because official acquiescence is an essential element of
a CAT claim, there is no need to consider his remaining arguments
concerning this form of relief. See Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 502; INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam).
Insofar as Taylor argues that the BIA erred by failing to afford him the
liberal construction due pro se litigants, our review of the record refutes this
claim. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014). Insofar as he
complains that his case was heard by one judge rather than three and that the
BIA did not exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen his proceedings, we
lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments. See Hernandez-Castillo v.
Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017); Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder,
584 F.3d 682, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2009). His challenge to the BIA’s denial of
his motion to reopen fails because he cites nothing undermining the BIA’s
conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over S-visas and thus shows no abuse of
discretion in connection with the BIA’s denial of the motion. See Gonzalez-
Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304-05 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Matter of G-
K, 26 I.&N. Dec. 88, 92 (BIA 2013). Finally, his motion for appointed
counsel lacks merit because this case does not present exceptional
circumstances. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for
want of jurisdiction. The motion for appointed counsel is DENIED.
2