Case: 20-60377 Document: 00515829634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2021
No. 20-60377
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Carlos Ernesto Amaya-Bonilla,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 752 801
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Ernesto Amaya-Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA and IJ also rejected his claim
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60377 Document: 00515829634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 20-60377
for relief under the Convention Against Torture, but he has abandoned that
issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Amaya-
Bonilla argues that asylum and withholding of removal were warranted based
on his membership in the proposed particular social groups comprised of
“young El Salvadorian males opposed to forced gang recruitment” and “El
Salvadorian males from lower socio-economic communities.”
We review only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some
impact on” that decision, as here. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.
2009). We review the BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal under the substantial evidence standard.
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). The petitioner must
show “not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also
that the evidence compels it.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518
(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Amaya-Bonilla has shown no legal error in the IJ’s or the BIA’s legal
analysis of the asylum claim, and the BIA’s decision that Amaya-Bonilla did
not establish his membership in a legally cognizable particular social group is
supported by substantial evidence. See id. We have declined to recognize as
particular social groups various permutations of groups of individuals who
are subjected to gang violence based on their refusal to join gangs or accede
to their demands. See id. at 521-22; see also Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d
982, 991-92 (10th Cir. 2015). Additionally, we have refused to recognize
individuals connected by economic status as a particular social group. See
Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012). Because
Amaya-Bonilla has not shown that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet
the higher standard to show that he is eligible for withholding of removal. See
Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2