Rigoberto Escalante-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60267 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: PRO, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 08/07/2017 [16-60267]

Case: 16-60267

Document: 00514035371

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/15/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60267
Summary Calendar
RIGOBERTO ESCALANTE-RODRIGUEZ,

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

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. A088 655 611
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rigoberto Escalante-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). Escalante-Rodriguez argues that the BIA erred by concluding that he
was ineligible for relief.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60267

Document: 00514035371

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/15/2017

No. 16-60267
Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions regarding EscalanteRodriguez’s eligibility for relief, both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions are
reviewable. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the
substantial evidence standard, Escalante-Rodriguez must demonstrate that
the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a
conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. See id. at 537.
Escalante-Rodriguez asserts that the evidence supports that he likely
would be persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group:
Mexican deportees from the United States who are targeted by the Zeta gang
due to their perceived wealth. However, the evidence does not compel a finding
that Escalante-Rodriguez has a well-founded fear of future harm because he
belongs to a particular social group. See id. He has not demonstrated that his
proposed particular social group is cognizable. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841
F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685
F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, even if his proposed group were
cognizable, the record does not compel the conclusion that his membership in
the group is a central reason that he would be targeted. See Wang, 569 F.3d
at 537; Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Rather, the record
supports that the Zetas have a criminal motive and seek illicit financial gain.
See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 2014).
Similarly, for purposes of relief under the CAT, the evidence does not
compel a finding that Escalante-Rodriguez more likely than not would be
tortured if he returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Wang, 569 F.3d
at 537. Escalante-Rodriguez has not established that the Zetas likely would
commit abuse that constituted torture, that the Mexican government would
acquiesce to the torture, or that he could not reside safely in some other part
of Mexico.

See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Ramirez-Mejia v.

2

Case: 16-60267

Document: 00514035371

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/15/2017

No. 16-60267
Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493-94 (5th Cir. 2015); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447
F.3d 343, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2006). His subjective belief that he or his family
would be tortured by the Zetas does not compel a conclusion different from that
reached by the BIA. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
The petition for review is DENIED.

3