Romero-Oliva, et al v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60004
Summary Calendar

Miguel Angel Romero-Oliva; Kevin Geovanny Romero-
Melendez,

Petitioners
,

versus

William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent
.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 886 745
BIA No. A208 886 746

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*
Miguel Angel Romero-Oliva and his teenage son, Kevin Geovanny
Romero-Melendez, are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIRcuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5
TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020

No. 19-60004
2
United States at or near Brownsville, Texas, on or about March 13, 2016,
without being admitted or paroled. Romero-Oliva and Romero-Melendez
have filed a petition for review of the order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge
(IJ) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Romero-Oliva sought asylum and withholding of removal based on
membership in a particular social group (PSG), which he identified as
“Honduran men who fear violence and delinquency in their home country.”
He listed Romero-Melendez as a derivative beneficiary of his asylum
application.
We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the
underlying decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s
decision. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s
legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). This court reviews the BIA’s findings for substantial
evidence, and it will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion. Id. at 517-18.
Romero-Oliva argues that his testimony allowed for the reasonable
inference that his proposed PSG also included his family’s status as
landowners and his sibling connection as the basis for or a component of a
cognizable PSG and that the IJ erred in failing to address that PSG. He
asserts that the IJ’s failure deprived him of a full and fair hearing and that the
BIA should have ordered a remand. He further argues that the BIA erred in
upholding the IJ’s finding that he did not suffer any persecution because he
experienced threats that were highly imminent and menacing in nature.
An asylum applicant has the burden to establish his entitlement to
relief by “clearly indicat[ing] on the record before the [IJ] . . . . the exact
delineation of any particular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.”
Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020

No. 19-60004
3
Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). During proceedings before the IJ,
Romero-Oliva expressly abandoned his proposed PSG based on his family’s
status as landowners. Moreover, his testimony does not suffice to raise his
sibling connection as a component of a cognizable PSG, given that he was
represented by counsel in his immigration proceedings and counsel was given
the opportunity to articulate the parameters of the PSG that Romero-Oliva
was proposing. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 191-93.
Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the BIA erred in declining to
consider a different PSG for the first time on appeal from the IJ. See
Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2019).
Romero-Oliva’s counseled brief presents no argument that the
purported persecution that he experienced and feared was based on, or would
be based on, membership in his original PSG: Honduran men who fear
violence and delinquency in their home country, which the BIA rejected as
non-cognizable. Romero-Oliva has therefore waived review of the issue. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Beasley v. McCotter,
798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). We need not consider Romero-Oliva’s
other argument that the threats he received from criminal gangs rose to the
level of persecution because he has failed to identify a cognizable PSG.
Because Romero-Oliva fails to show that he was or would be
persecuted based on a protected ground, he is ineligible for asylum. See
Cantarero-Lagos, 924 F.3d at 150. As such, the BIA did not err. See id.; 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Romero-Oliva’s failure to establish his eligibility
for asylum necessarily defeats his claim to withholding of removal. See Majd
v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
Case: 19-60004 Document: 00515557434 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020