Melvin Alexander-Lorenzo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-60597 Affirmed ] Judge: RHB , Judge: EBC , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 10/15/2015 [14-60597]

Case: 14-60597

Document: 00513166292

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/24/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-60597
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 24, 2015

MELVIN ALEXANDER-LORENZO,
Petitioner

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A087 896 860
Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Melvin Alexander-Lorenzo seeks review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s
(IJ) decision denying him asylum and withholding of removal. Alexander
claims the IJ erred in: denying his petition because he belongs to a requisite
particular social group, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), comprised of
recipients of death threats due to testifying against a member of organized

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 14-60597

Document: 00513166292

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/24/2015

No. 14-60597
crime; and not affording him an opportunity to explain how he belongs to that
group. He has waived his Convention Against Torture claim by failing to
challenge the BIA’s denial of that claim. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d
445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
Factual findings made by the BIA are reviewed for substantial evidence,
which requires the finding to be based on the evidence presented and that it be
substantially reasonable. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18
(5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial evidence standard, a finding fails only
when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Alexander’s contention that his actions as “a witness” during an incident
at an immigration checkpoint qualify him as a member of a group of
individuals who testified against organized crime is without merit.

A

particular social group is “defined by characteristics that provide a clear
benchmark for determining who falls within the group”. Matter of W-G-R-,
26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA 2014). Assuming arguendo persons who testify
against organized crime members may constitute a requisite particular social
group, Alexander fails to establish his membership in that group. In short, he
has not shown the BIA’s determination that he failed to show membership in
a particular social group, as required to succeed on a claim for asylum or
withholding of removal, is substantially unreasonable. See Orellana-Monson,
685 F.3d at 517–18.
Further, his claim that the IJ did not afford him an opportunity to
present evidence concerning a particular social group also fails. Although
Alexander faults the IJ, “[a]s a fact-finder in this case”, for “fail[ing] to
question” him regarding the particular social group to which he belonged, the
IJ did not have a duty to develop the facts necessary to prove Alexander’s claim.

2

Case: 14-60597

Document: 00513166292

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/24/2015

No. 14-60597
See Lopez-Rodriguez v. I.N.S., No. 93-05242, 1994 WL 122108, at *6 (5th Cir.
24 Mar. 1994) (unpublished). Moreover, Alexander’s counsel was given the
opportunity to more fully develop the claims, but declined to do so.
DENIED.

3