RAMOS ENRIQUEZ v. BARR (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Duglas Ulises RAMOS-ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner v. William P. BARR, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 18-60580

Decided: September 24, 2019

Before DAVIS, SMITH and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. Cristian Patricio Silva, Esq., Cristian P. Silva Law Office, L.L.C., Harvey, LA, for Petitioner Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Duglas Ulises Ramos-Enriquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We review the decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, the substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s rejection of Ramos-Enriquez’s claims for asylum, see Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012); Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir. 2006), for withholding of removal, see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002), and for protection under the CAT, see Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45.

PETITION DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.