Juan Carcamo-Cruz v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-60850 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/02/2017 [15-60850]

Case: 15-60850

Document: 00513947553

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/11/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-60850
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 11, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JUAN RAMON CARCAMO-CRUZ,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 116 463
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Juan Ramon Carcamo-Cruz petitions this court for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for statutory
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He does not brief any
challenge to the denial of withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture. Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-60850

Document: 00513947553

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/11/2017

No. 15-60850
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not briefed are considered
abandoned).
In his petition, Carcamo-Cruz contends that he is eligible for statutory
withholding based on his membership in a particular social group (PSG), to
wit, individuals who were part of a crowd of persons being robbed but were
singled out, shot, and subsequently threatened by the MS-18 gang. He does
not point to any evidence in the record or to any relevant legal authority that
shows that his proposed PSG has a common immutable characteristic,
particularity, or social distinction within the Salvadoran community.

See

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-22 (5th Cir. 2012), as modified
by Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016);
see Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012).
The petition for review is DENIED.

2