Case: 20-60695 Document: 00516335439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 27, 2022
No. 20-60695
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Duglas Igdali Argueta, also known as Balmore Ayala,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A099 480 660
Before Davis, Jones, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Duglas Igdali Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also seeks review of a separate
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60695 Document: 00516335439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
No. 20-60695
decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial
of his motion to reopen his 2006 removal proceedings and to rescind the
reinstatement of his in absentia removal order.
Our court has jurisdiction to review a petition for review if filed within
30 days of the challenged BIA order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). In this matter,
the BIA issued its decision dismissing Argueta’s appeal of the denial of his
motion to reopen on September 20, 2019, and the petition for review was not
filed until August 3, 2020. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the issues
raised in Argueta’s brief regarding the motion to reopen. See Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.
2006).
Turning to Argueta’s CAT claim, an applicant bears the burden of
demonstrating eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Tamara-
Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 2006). If an applicant’s
testimony is credible but not sufficient to satisfy the requisite burden of proof
by itself, the immigration judge may require the submission of reasonably
available corroborating evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Yang
v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2011). We must uphold “a
determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of
corroborating evidence unless the court finds that a reasonable trier of fact is
compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.”
Yang, 664 F.3d at 587 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)).
Here, the record does not compel the conclusion that corroborating
evidence was not reasonably available to Argueta. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
954 F.3d 757, 769 (5th Cir. 2020); Yang, 664 F.3d at 587. Given the lack of
evidence to corroborate his allegations, Argueta has not shown that he is
entitled to CAT relief. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 587. Thus, we need not reach
2
Case: 20-60695 Document: 00516335439 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
No. 20-60695
his other CAT-related issues on review. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
24, 25 (1976).
DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
3