Jose Arteaga Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60700 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60700 Document: 00513661040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60700 Summary Calendar JOSE BENITO ARTEAGA HERNANDEZ, FILED September 1, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 068 592 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Benito Arteaga Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal. Arteaga Hernandez sought withholding of removal based on problems with gangs in Honduras. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-60700 Document: 00513661040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2016 No. 15-60700 We review the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the immigration judge only if it had some impact upon the BIA’s decision. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2011). “To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Arteaga Hernandez contends that he showed past persecution and a clear probability of future persecution based on his membership in a group of Hondurans who were unsuccessfully recruited by gangs, beaten, reported the beating to authorities, and continue to be threatened by gang members. Under the substantial evidence standard, the BIA’s determination that Arteaga Hernandez is not eligible for withholding of removal does not warrant reversal as Arteaga Hernandez’s purported group is not protected for purposes of withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. 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.
