Elmer Reyes-Mercado v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 11-60782 Document: 00511957941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 15, 2012
No. 11-60782
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ELMER A. REYES-MERCADO,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A094 921 736
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nicaraguan citizen Elmer A. Reyes-Mercado petitions this court for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order that he be removed from this country. Similar
to his filings with the BIA, Reyes-Mercado argues that he is entitled to asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and
adjustment of status.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-60782 Document: 00511957941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2012
No. 11-60782
We review the BIA’s decision with respect to asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d
1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Reyes-Mercado has not met this standard, as he has
not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by
the BIA. See id. Insofar as he argues that the BIA erred by determining that
he should have submitted evidence to corroborate his claims, this argument fails.
See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585-587 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, __
S. Ct. __, 2012 WL 831496 (June 18, 2012). To the extent Reyes-Mercado
contends that the IJ and BIA should not have relied upon the Department of
State Country Report in assessing his claims, he is wrong. See Rojas v. INS, 937
F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991). Reyes-Mercado’s argument that he is entitled
to adjustment of status misses the mark because that relief is not available from
this court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1); De Hoyos v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 339, 341
(5th Cir. 2008); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2007). The petition
for review is DENIED.
2