United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED March 3, 2023 No. 22-60091 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Roberto Rodriguez Gonzalez,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A079 744 164

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Petitioner seeks review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He alleges that the BIA and the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) committed legal error in concluding that he was ineligible for asylum because of a conviction of Texas aggravated robbery. We disagree and deny his petition for review. I. Background Roberto Rodriguez Gonzalez (“Petitioner”) is a native citizen of Mexico who received lawful permanent resident status in the United States Case: 22-60091 Document: 00516664844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

No. 22-60091

in 2003. In 2014, he pleaded guilty to Texas aggravated robbery and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Subsequently he received a Notice to Appear from the Department of Homeland Security in which he was charged as removable because of his conviction. An IJ found him removable and, further, ineligible for asylum due to his conviction. The BIA affirmed. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct 1204 (2018), in which it was held that the “crime of violence” designation in the relevant removal statute was unconstitutionally vague, id. at 1210, the Petitioner moved to reopen proceedings. An IJ again found him ineligible for asylum due to his conviction and, independently, ineligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA affirmed, and the Petitioner filed a petition for review in this court. II. Law and Analysis As a general matter, we “only have authority to review the BIA’s decision, although we may also review the IJ’s decision when it has some impact on the BIA’s decision, as when the BIA has adopted all or part of the IJ’s reasoning.” Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). See also Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless . . . . [t]he applicant . . . show[s] that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). The Court reviews questions of law de novo. Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, 743 F. 3d 110, 112 (5th Cir. 2014). A. Eligibility for Asylum

2 Case: 22-60091 Document: 00516664844 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

No. 22-60091

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), an “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after