Danny Cruz-Perdomo v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-60504 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 04/03/2017 [15-60504]

Download PDF
Case: 15-60504 Document: 00513867265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60504 Summary Calendar FILED February 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DANNY CRUZ-PERDOMO, Petitioner v. DANA BOENTE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 845 443 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Danny Perdomo-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal from the IJ’s denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to his claim for withholding of removal, Cruz-Perdomo principally asserts that the BIA’s determination that religion was not “one central reason” 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-60504 Document: 00513867265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 No. 15-60504 for his persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. Even if we construe some of the record evidence as supporting Cruz-Perdomo’s claim, he fails to show that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to conclude that he is eligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Cruz-Perdomo also challenges the denial of his CAT claim. He provides little to no detail to support his assertion that a government official, or someone acting in an official capacity, would instigate or acquiesce in his torture. The BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002). PETITION DENIED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?