Velazquez Adame v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-61181 Document: 00516358972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 15, 2022
No. 20-61181 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Hortencia Velazquez Adame; Everardo Perez
Velazquez; Luis Aldeir Perez Velazquez; Arileny Perez
Velazquez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 925 454
BIA No. A208 925 455
BIA No. A208 925 456
BIA No. A208 925 457
Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 20-61181 Document: 00516358972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 20-61181
Hortencia Velazquez Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
Because Velazquez Adame failed to exhaust her claims concerning the
validity of her notice to appear and her membership in a particular social
group (PSG) consisting of those who have cooperated with law enforcement
officials we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Flores-Abarca v. Barr, 937
F.3d 473, 477-78 (5th Cir. 2019); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.
2004). She identifies no error in the BIA’s determination that she was
ineligible for asylum or withholding of relief because she failed to show
membership in a cognizable PSG. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, because her argument concerning her CAT
claim is speculative, she has not shown that substantial evidence compels a
conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on this issue. See Morales v. Sessions,
860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th
Cir. 2006). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED
in part.
1
Hortencia Velazquez Adame is the lead applicant, and the other three derivative
applicants are her children.
2