Edgar Caniz-Garcia, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Edgar Caniz-Garcia, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60657

Document: 00511185942

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/27/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60657 S u m m a r y Calendar July 27, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

E D G A R ARMANDO CANIZ-GARCIA; GLORIA MARINA ORDONEZ, P e titio n e rs v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A070 526 768 B I A No. A072 453 754

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E d g a r Armando Caniz-Garica (Caniz) and his wife, Gloria Marina O r d o n e z , petition for review of the denial of their applications for asylum, w it h h o ld in g of removal, cancellation of removal, and relief under the Nicaraguan A d ju s t m e n t and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). We review factual fin d in g s of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2007). Under substantial

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60657

Document: 00511185942 Page: 2 No. 09-60657

Date Filed: 07/27/2010

e v id e n c e review, we may not reverse factual findings unless the evidence c o m p e ls a contrary conclusion. Id. A c c o r d in g to Caniz, the record establishes that he is likely to face p e r s e c u t io n if he is removed to Guatemala because his father was killed due to h is participation in the Christian Democracy Party. The denial of his

a p p lic a t io n s for asylum and withholding of removal is supported by substantial e v id e n c e . See id. Caniz has not identified the people who killed his father or a lle g e d or shown that he has received threats from the same people. His mother a n d sister live in his hometown and have not been harmed, and he has returned t o Guatemala at least twice and has not suffered any harm. See Eduard v. A s h c r o ft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004). Caniz has not shown that there is a nexus between the alleged persecution and one of the statutorily protected g r o u n d s . See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). He has also failed t o show that he could not relocate to another area of Guatemala to avoid p e r s e c u t io n . See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(B). Because he has not shown that he is eligible for asylum, he has also failed to s h o w that he is eligible for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 8 9 9 , 906 (5th Cir. 2002). O r d o n e z does not challenge the denial of her application for cancellation o f removal in her petition for review. Accordingly, she has waived any challenge s h e might have raised regarding that decision. See Hongyok v. Gonzales, 492 F .3 d 547, 551 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007). C a n iz and Ordonez did not exhaust their administrative remedies c o n c e r n i n g their NACARA claims in their appeal to the BIA. See Omari v. H o ld e r , 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (d). Therefore, w e lack jurisdiction to consider these claims. See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318-19. P E T I T I O N DENIED.

2