Rosendo Martinez-Magallanes v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60170 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60170 Document: 00513374588 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60170 Summary Calendar FILED February 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROSENDO MARTINEZ-MAGALLANES, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 683 762 Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosendo Martinez-Magallanes petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Martinez-Magallanes has abandoned any challenge to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60170 Document: 00513374588 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 15-60170 under the CAT by failing to address these issues in his brief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Contrary to his argument, Martinez-Magallanes claimed membership in a particular social group as “a homeowner who is a victim of extortion by Mexican gangs.” Aside from conclusional assertions, Martinez-Magallanes provides no argument regarding why these characteristics meet the requisite standards of social visibility or distinction and particularity. See OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, he has not shown that the BIA and IJ erred in determining that he failed to establish membership in a particular social group and denying him withholding of removal. See id. at 517-18. The petition for review is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.