Ruiz Figueroa v. Garland, No. 20-60727 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60727 Summary Calendar April 14, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Gabriel Alejandro Ruiz Figueroa, also known as Gabriel Alejandro Ruiz, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A094 278 071 Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Gabriel Alejandro Ruiz Figueroa, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 No. 20-60727 affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal. When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, we review the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). Findings of fact, including the denial of withholding of removal, are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal— i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Conclusions of law and whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over an issue are reviewed de novo. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013); Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 2003). Ruiz Figueroa failed to raise before the BIA in the first instance (1) whether the IJ failed to clarify his particular social group (PSG) and (2) whether the IJ and BIA erred by not finding him prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal. Thus, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, which deprives us of jurisdiction to review them. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020). His PSG of “Honduran men persecuted by gangs who are protected by the police” is not cognizable because it does not exist independently of the persecution. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). Contrary to Ruiz Figueroa’s contention, the IJ’s analysis of the circular nature of his PSG involved more than just rejecting it at the “mere mention” of the persecution. Because Ruiz Figueroa failed to assert a cognizable PSG, his withholding of removal claim fails, see id. at 224, 229, and this court need not evaluate the rest of his issues raised on review related to withholding of removal, see INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 2 Case: 20-60727 Document: 00516281371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 No. 20-60727 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Accordingly, his petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 3
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.
