Case: 14-60716 Document: 00513746892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-60716 FILED
Summary Calendar November 4, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
EDWIN J. AMAYA-MALDONADO,
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 144 051
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Edwin J. Amaya-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). According to Amaya-Maldonado, the IJ failed to
state adequate reasons for his decision and did not permit Amaya-
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-60716 Document: 00513746892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2016
No. 14-60716
Maldonado to identify the particular social group of which he was a part and
for which membership he was persecuted. Amaya-Maldonado asserts that
his family is a particular social group which has been targeted by a
Honduran gang in that, ten years previously, the gang tried ten times to
force him to join, a gang member raped his sister, and another gang member
killed his brother-in-law.
Reviewing the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision, upon which the
BIA relied, see Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997), we find that
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Amaya-
Maldonado failed to show a clear probability that he was or would be
persecuted as a member of a group of persons sharing an immutable
characteristic. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir.
2012). Moreover, the record evidences that the IJ confirmed with Amaya-
Maldonado that he had presented all of the evidence and testimony he desired
regarding his claims.
As to the denial of CAT relief, the substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that Amaya-Maldonado failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that a party acting with the acquiescence of, or
under the control of, a public official inflicted physical or psychological “severe
pain or suffering” for the purpose of “obtaining information or confession,”
“punishing,” intimidating or coercing, or another reason based in
discrimination. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
1134, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, Amaya-Maldonado presents no evidence
compelling a conclusion other than that he failed to show that it was “more
likely than not that [Amaya-Maldonado] would be tortured if removed to . . .
Honduras.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134, 1139.
Amaya-Maldonado’s petition for review is DENIED.
2