Case: 21-60042 Document: 00516354322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-60042 June 13, 2022
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jonathan Eduardo Lozano-Aguilar,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 895 414
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jonathan Eduardo Lozano-Aguilar petitions for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible for
asylum and withholding of removal. Insofar as he argues that the BIA and IJ
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60042 Document: 00516354322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-60042
erred by not seeking clarification of his proposed social group (PSG), we lack
jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was not first presented to the
BIA. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
We review challenges to the BIA’s determination that Lozano-Aguilar
was ineligible for relief under the substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the
decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced
the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Lozano-
Aguilar has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to
that of the BIA on the issue whether he was a member of a cognizable PSG
and thus has not met the substantial evidence standard with respect to this
issue. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-
Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Zhang, 432
F.3d at 344. He concomitantly has shown no error in the BIA’s conclusion
that he was ineligible for relief, and there is no need for us to consider his
remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976);
Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 521-22; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th
Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED
in part for want of jurisdiction.
2