Alvarenga-Palacios v. Garland

Case: 20-61218 Document: 00516399839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 19, 2022 No. 20-61218 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Pedro Alfonso Alvarenga-Palacios; Alen Adrian Alvarenga Guzman, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208 278 024 Agency No. A208 278 025 Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pedro Alfonso Alvarenga-Palacios, along with his minor son, Alen Adrian Alvarenga Guzman, a rider on his father’s asylum application, have petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61218 Document: 00516399839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 No. 20-61218 dismissing an appeal from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding that they were ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), and consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA, see Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). In reliance on Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the petitioners move for a remand to allow the IJ to determine whether the case can be heard. Our holding in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. at 1479-80, that a notice to appear is not fatally defective because it does not include the time, date, and place of future removal proceedings remains valid after the decision in Niz-Chavez. See Garcia v. Garland, 28 F.4th 644, 647- 48 (5th Cir. 2022). The motion for a remand is therefore DENIED. The respondent moves to dismiss this matter under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. See Giri v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2007). The petitioners dispute the assertion that Alvarenga-Palacios is a fugitive. The motion to dismiss is DENIED. Challenging the BIA’s determination that they are ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, the petitioners argue that a sufficient nexus was established because membership in a particular social group defined as “farmers in a rural area of El Salvador” is one central reason the MS-13 gang targeted Alvarenga-Palacios and others in his family by threatening them with harm if they did not give money and other valuables to the gang. They also argue that they will be persecuted by the gang if they return to El Salvador because Alvarenga-Palacios failed to comply previously with the gang’s demands. 2 Case: 20-61218 Document: 00516399839 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 No. 20-61218 Substantial evidence supports the finding that Alvarenga-Palacios’s persecutors were motivated not …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals