TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cruz-Melgar v. Holder

Miguel Angel CRUZ-MELGAR, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

Cruz-Melgar v. Holder, 327 F. App'x 513 (5th Cir. 2009)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 22, 2009
Docket
No. 08-60456
Judges
Higginbotham, Barksdale, Haynes
Citations
327 F. App'x 513
Status
Unpublished

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

* Miguel Angel Cruz-Melgar, a minor, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum. Cruz contends, as the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded, that his application should have been granted because he will be persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group consisting of young Honduran males targeted by gangs for recruitment. (Because Cruz has not challenged the BIA’s conclusion that he was not entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture, any such claims are abandoned.

See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).)

In reviewing decisions of the BIA, we review questions of law de novo but defer “to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration statutes unless the record reveals compelling evidence that the BIA’s interpretation is incorrect”.

Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir.2009). Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Id.

“This court reviews the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced the determination of the BIA.”

Id.

Cruz contends the BIA erred in failing to consider the history of harassment and mistreatment suffered by Cruz and his family at the hands of gang members. Cruz maintains the BIA should have considered documentary evidence showing the Honduran population in general has problems with gang members and young men are typically recruited for gang member *514 ship. Cruz has not established the evidence compels a contrary conclusion from that reached by the BIA.

See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir.2004).

DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2009: 12012: 120092026peak 2009 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jose Orellana-Monson v. Eric Holder, Jr.685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012)
  2. Cua-Tumax v. Holder343 F. App'x 995 (5th Cir. 2009)

Most recent

  1. Jose Orellana-Monson v. Eric Holder, Jr.685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012)
  2. Cua-Tumax v. Holder343 F. App'x 995 (5th Cir. 2009)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) 310
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003) 727
Jopie Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) 364

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list