Sanchez-Felipe v. Garland, No. 20-60999 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60999 Document: 00516322870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 17, 2022 No. 20-60999 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Silvano Sanchez-Felipe, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of the Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 238 144 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Silvano Sanchez-Felipe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60999 Document: 00516322870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 No. 20-60999 In reviewing the BIA’s decision, we will consider the immigration judge’s (IJ) underlying decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). We review the IJ’s findings of fact “that an applicant is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, [or] relief under [CAT]” for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 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. We review de novo conclusions of law, Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411, and whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over an issue, GarciaMelendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 2003). We cannot grant Sanchez-Felipe the relief he seeks. We lack the jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Sanchez-Felipe failed to establish an exception to the one-year filing deadline for filing his asylum application. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594–95 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that determinations of timeliness based on findings of fact are not reviewable). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that SanchezFelipe is not entitled to withholding of removal because his particular social group of “victims of crime in Mexico” does not exist independently of the persecution, making it not cognizable. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). Finally, Sanchez-Felipe has not put forth evidence that would compel us to find, under CAT, that “if removed to [Mexico], it is more likely than not he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials acting under the color of law.” See Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Sanchez-Felipe’s petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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.
