Case: 22-60107 Document: 00516591769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60107
Summary Calendar FILED
December 28, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Rafael Antonio Olvera-Amezcua, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A207 370 463
Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rafael Antonio Olvera-Amezcua, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
him asylum, withholding of removal, and adjustment of status. Insofar as he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-60107 Document: 00516591769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-60107
argues that his testimony sufficed to show eligibility for asylum and
withholding and that he showed a reasonable fear of future persecution, these
arguments are unavailing because they do not compel a conclusion contrary
to that of the BIA on the issue whether he should receive asylum and
withholding. See Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2022);
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We lack jurisdiction
over his argument that the IJ and BIA erred by not considering whether he
showed past persecution because it is unexhausted. See Martinez-Guevara v.
Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Finally, we conclude that Olivera-Amezcua has failed to raise any
valid legal issues regarding his request for an adjustment of status given that
the BIA applied the appropriate standard. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d
798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over his
arguments challenging the denial of his request for an adjustment of status
because they claim to legal challenges but instead simply concern the denial
of relief. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1618, 1622 (2022). The
petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
2