Mendez-Lopez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60667 Document: 00515782992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2021
United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
for the Fifth Circuit March 16, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
No. 19-60667
Summary Calendar
Rosalio Antonio Mendez-Lopez; Melvin Antonio
Mendez-Julian,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 806 316
BIA No. A206 806 317
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Ho and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rosalio Antonio Mendez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
appeals his order of removal. He experienced extortion demands and threats
to his family over the phone from unknown callers. Mendez-Lopez applied
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60667 Document: 00515782992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2021
No. 19-60667
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture on behalf of himself and his son, Melvin Antonio Mendez-Julian.
First, Mendez-Lopez argues that the Board should have considered
his asylum claim, even though it was not timely filed. We can consider
timeliness in asylum claims if the reason for untimeliness is based on a legal
or constitutional question. Nakimbugwe v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 281, 284 &
nn.1-2 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Because Mendez-Lopez’s argument is
factual in nature, this court does not have jurisdiction. See id. at 284 & n.1.
Second, regarding withholding of removal, Mendez-Lopez contends
that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in affirming that he is not likely
to be persecuted on the basis of an imputed political opinion. Mendez-Lopez
presents no argument or framing of the evidence that compels this court to
conclude that the Board’s determination was incorrect. See Orellana-Monson
v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012).
Third, Mendez-Lopez contests the Board’s finding that he has not
shown that he will more likely than not be subject to torture upon removal.
But Mendez-Lopez does not adequately brief any argument. So, we consider
this issue abandoned. See Cal. Gas Transp., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 507 F.3d 847,
852 n.3 (5th Cir. 2007).
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part.
2