Guevara-Enriquez v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60311
Summary Calendar

Melvin Naun Guevara-Enriquez,

Petitioner,

versus

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

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 567 630

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Melvin Naun Guevara-Enriquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. He challenges the BIA’s

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020

No. 19-60311
2
determination that he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution based on a protected ground with respect to his
claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Although the IJ also denied
relief under the Convention Against Torture, Guevara-Enriquez did not
appeal that to the BIA, nor does he raise it here.
As an initial matter, Guevara-Enriquez did not properly exhaust his
contentions that the BIA did not review his claims with the appropriate level
of rigor and scrutiny and failed to consider all the evidence and applicable
caselaw. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore,
we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See id. at 320-21.
With respect to the substance of his asylum and withholding claims,
we review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions
of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
We “may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358
(5th Cir. 2009). Guevara-Enriquez argues that he established past
persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his
membership in two particular social groups: “young Guatemalan men
perceived by the M-18 gang to be” police informants and “former
acquaintances of the M-18 gang perceived to be police informants.” We find
no error in the conclusion that Guevara-Enriquez failed to establish
persecution based on membership in a particular social group. Hernandez-
De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016); Orellana-Monson v.
Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2012). Apart from the particular
social group issue, the threats and harassment Guevara-Enriquez suffered do
not rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188
(5th Cir. 2004). Thus, he has not shown that the record compels the
conclusion that he is entitled to asylum or, it follows, withholding of removal.
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020

No. 19-60311
3
IT IS ORDERED THAT the petition for review is DENIED in
part and DISMISSED in part for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Case: 19-60311 Document: 00515553120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/04/2020