Bravo Galeana v. Garland

Case: 23-60596 Document: 34-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-60596

FILED June 25, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Eduardo Bravo Galeana; Mireya Gorrosquieta

Arreola; Bryan Eduardo Bravo Gorrosquieta; Jose

Alonso Bravo Gorrosquieta; Cristopher Bravo

Gorrosquieta,

Petitioners, versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A209 401 696,

A209 401 697, A209 401 698,

A209 401 699, A209 401 700 ______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Case: 23-60596 Document: 34-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2024

No. 23-60596

Jose Eduardo Bravo Galeana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordering him removed. 1 Because the BIA’s decision concerning withholding and CAT relief is reviewed for substantial evidence, this court should not disturb it unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). He has not met this standard. Bravo Galeana has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the agency on the issue whether his proposed particular social groups (PSGs) are cognizable, as he fails to identify evidence establishing their particularity. See id.; see also Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019).

Because PSG membership is an essential element of his asylum and withholding claims, he cannot show that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA concerning these claims, and this court need not consider his remaining arguments concerning the other elements of these forms of relief. See Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2023); Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401-02 (5th Cir. 2021); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. His challenge to our jurisprudence concluding that withholding has a higher standard than asylum is, as he concedes, unavailing. See Mercado v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2016); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).

Case: 23-60596 Document: 34-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2024

No. 23-60596

Finally, he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the question whether more likely than not he will be tortured with governmental acquiescence if repatriated and thus fails to show error in the BIA’s rejection of his CAT claim. Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for review is DENIED.