Case: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60670 December 20, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Juan Carlos Ayala-Ramos,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 867 654
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Carlos Ayala-Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of an immigration judge’s decision affirming an asylum officer’s
determination that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution. Ayala-Ramos
also asserts that his due process rights were violated and that, despite being
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 20-60670
previously ordered removed, he is eligible for asylum. Because he does not
challenge the determination that he failed to demonstrate that he was more
likely than not to be tortured upon his return to El Salvador, that claim has
been abandoned. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir.
2008).
To establish a reasonable fear of persecution, an alien must
“establish[] a reasonable possibility that he or she would be persecuted on
account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c). 1 To demonstrate
persecution, the applicant must establish that one of the five statutorily
protected grounds was “at least one central reason” for the harm that he
experienced. Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Although Ayala-Ramos argues that he
was persecuted on account of a friend’s political activity and because he
investigated a friend’s murder by MS-13, he has failed to articulate any actual
or imputed political opinion. Because the record does not compel the
conclusion that he was targeted on account of a protected basis, substantial
evidence supports the determination that he failed to establish a reasonable
fear of persecution.
Ayala-Ramos also argues that his due process rights were violated. To
prevail on a due process claim, “an alien must make an initial showing of
substantial prejudice by making ‘a prima facie showing that the alleged
violation affected the outcome of the proceeding.’” Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr,
1
“Although the Government argues that this court should apply a ‘facially
legitimate and bona fide reason’ standard rather than the substantial evidence standard in
evaluating an immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination, it is not necessary to
determine the appropriate standard of review at this time because [Ayala-Ramos’s] claim
fails even under the less deferential substantial evidence test.” Carbajal-Betanco v. Barr,
830 F. App’x 452, 453 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020).
2
Case: 20-60670 Document: 00516137396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 20-60670
954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965,
971 (5th Cir. 2018)). While he claims that the immigration judge did not
allow him adequate time to submit evidence and prevented him from
submitting evidence, he is unable to demonstrate that he was actually
prejudiced because he has failed to indicate how the additional evidence he
says he would have presented could lead to a different result. See Arteaga-
Ramirez, 954 F.3d at 813. Moreover, the record reflects that he was provided
an opportunity to testify in support of his claim and that the immigration
judge accepted his evidence, treated his testimony as credible, and
considered the raised issues before affirming the decision of the asylum
officer. Because the record reflects that Ayala-Ramos received a notice of his
charges, a hearing, and a fair opportunity to be heard, he failed to
demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. See Okpala, 908 F.3d
at 971.
Finally, despite his assertions to the contrary, Ayala-Ramos is
ineligible for asylum because he is subject to the reinstatement of a previous
order of removal. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir.
2015).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
3