Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mejia v. Lynch
Citation: 633 F. App'x 269Docket: No. 15-60174
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 10, 2016; Federal Appellate Court
Hernán Jonathan Echeverría Mejia, a citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his asylum application, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Mejia claimed persecution based on his membership in a particular social group, specifically business owners extorted by criminal organizations. However, he did not contest the denials of withholding of removal and CAT protection, effectively abandoning those claims. The BIA concurred with the IJ's findings regarding Mejia's eligibility for relief, making both decisions reviewable. To succeed, Mejia needed to show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could differ from the IJ and BIA's conclusions. Under U.S. immigration law, an asylum seeker must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution due to one of five protected grounds, including membership in a particular social group. Mejia's asserted social group lacked the necessary social distinction and particularity to qualify for protection; previous rulings established that business owners facing extortion do not constitute a protected group. The targeting of Mejia and his family by gangs was for financial gain rather than punishment for a specific status, and economic extortion is not recognized as persecution based on a protected ground. Mejia also suggested a familial aspect to his business ownership, proposing a distinct social group of family members owning businesses targeted by gangs. However, this claim was not exhausted and thus not reviewable. Furthermore, his argument that the familial relationship rendered the group immutable and distinct was not compelling, as he failed to demonstrate the required immutability, social visibility, or particularity of the group. Ultimately, the evidence did not compel a finding contrary to the BIA's decision, leading to the denial of Mejia's petition for review. The court also indicated that this opinion should not be published and is not considered precedent except in limited circumstances.