Olvera-Amezcua v. Garland, No. 22-60107 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-60107 Document: 00516591769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 22-60107 Summary Calendar Rafael Antonio Olvera-Amezcua, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A207 370 463 Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Rafael Antonio Olvera-Amezcua, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and adjustment of status. Insofar as he * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 22-60107 Document: 00516591769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 No. 22-60107 argues that his testimony sufficed to show eligibility for asylum and withholding and that he showed a reasonable fear of future persecution, these arguments are unavailing because they do not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he should receive asylum and withholding. See Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2022); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We lack jurisdiction over his argument that the IJ and BIA erred by not considering whether he showed past persecution because it is unexhausted. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(d)(1). Finally, we conclude that Olivera-Amezcua has failed to raise any valid legal issues regarding his request for an adjustment of status given that the BIA applied the appropriate standard. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over his arguments challenging the denial of his request for an adjustment of status because they claim to legal challenges but instead simply concern the denial of relief. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1618, 1622 (2022). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED 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.
