Jose Arteaga Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch

Case: 15-60700 Document: 00513661040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-60700 FILED
Summary Calendar September 1, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOSE BENITO ARTEAGA HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 068 592
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Benito Arteaga Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, has
filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding
of removal. Arteaga Hernandez sought withholding of removal based on
problems with gangs in Honduras.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-60700 Document: 00513661040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2016
No. 15-60700
We review the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision
of the immigration judge only if it had some impact upon the BIA’s decision.
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2011). “To be eligible
for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a clear probability
of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
1138 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Arteaga Hernandez contends that he showed past persecution and a
clear probability of future persecution based on his membership in a group of
Hondurans who were unsuccessfully recruited by gangs, beaten, reported the
beating to authorities, and continue to be threatened by gang members. Under
the substantial evidence standard, the BIA’s determination that Arteaga
Hernandez is not eligible for withholding of removal does not warrant reversal
as Arteaga Hernandez’s purported group is not protected for purposes of
withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517; Chen, 470 F.3d
at 1134.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2