Leal v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60669 Document: 00515800275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-60669 March 29, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Yoel Alonso Leal,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 215 950 092
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Yoel Leal, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for review of his
order of removal. He contends that the immigration judge’s adverse credi-
bility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. He further avers that
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60669 Document: 00515800275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2021
No. 19-60669
substantial evidence indicates the elements of his asylum claim have been
fulfilled.
The Board of Immigration Appeals declined to affirm the adverse
credibility finding. Leal, however, did not exhaust administrative remedies
as to his credibility challenge by raising it in a motion to reconsider, and we
lack jurisdiction to address that challenge. See Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d
862, 868−69 (5th Cir. 2018); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir.
2009).
Persecution for purposes of a past-persecution-asylum claim must be
extreme conduct. Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 2006);
see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Harm
analogous to what Leal described does not compel a finding of statutory per-
secution. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 234−35 (5th Cir. 2004); Tesfa-
michael, 469 F.3d at 117.
Asylum can also be based on a reasonable fear of future persecution.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444−45 (5th Cir. 2001). Leal has not
offered evidence that would compel the conclusion that he will be persecuted
in the future. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188−89 (5th Cir. 1994). Addi-
tionally, internal relocation negates a reasonable fear of future persecution,
and Leal has not shown evidence that would compel a finding that he cannot
relocate within his country. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii); Lopez-Gomez,
263 F.3d at 445−46. Finally, Leal did not present his argument for withhold-
ing of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, so it is unexhausted, and
we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Vazquez, 885 F.3d at 868−69.
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part for want of jurisdiction.
2