skip to content

skip to navigation

Welcome to the Bar Association of The Fifth Federal Circuit,

Improving and facilitating the administration of justice in the federal courts within the Fifth Circuit.

Learn more about BAFFC »

 
News Flash

Notice of Proposed Amendment to 5TH CIRCUIT RULES 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 
 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2071, we give notice the court is considering amending 5TH CIR. R. 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 as shown below.  Additionally, the court is studying possible additional changes with respect to new word count limitations in the December 1, 2016 amendments to FRAP Rules 5, 21, 27, 28.1, 32, 35 and 40.   
 
We will accept written comments for consideration on the proposed change through November 15, 2016: 
 
Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ATTN: Rule Changes 600 South Maestri Place New Orleans, LA 70130 
Notice of Proposed Amendment to 5TH CIRCUIT RULES 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 
 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2071, we give notice the court is considering amending 5TH CIR. R. 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 as shown below.  Additionally, the court is studying possible additional changes with respect to new word count limitations in the December 1, 2016 amendments to FRAP Rules 5, 21, 27, 28.1, 32, 35 and 40.   
 
We will accept written comments for consideration on the proposed change through November 15, 2016: 
 
Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ATTN: Rule Changes 600 South Maestri Place New Orleans, LA 70130 
or send comments electronically to Changes@ca5.uscourts.gov 

Fair Labor Lawyer by Marlene Trestman

The Clerk of Court for the Fifth Circuit has offered guidance for citation to the record on appeal.  

Get more from your membership with BAFFC. Join us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+ to receive rapid updates. Connect with BAFFC today!

Did you know you can register to receive notices in cases of interest in the Fifth Circuit?

 

The Daily Commentary (sample)

Sample case reviewed on November 17, 2016.
Become a Member to receive Daily Emails

Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch No. 14-60722 Summary Calendar

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60722-CV0.pdf

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
(PER CURIAM).

DENIED. (November 14, 2016).

Posted in Immigration, Immigration and Nationality Act

Ismael Gonzalez-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing his appeal from the order denying his application for withholding removal under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and requiring his return to Mexico. Gonzalez-Soto was charged with being subject to removal for entering this country without inspection, as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Gonzalez-Soto conceded his removability on the ground charged and filed an application for withholding of removal or, alternatively, voluntary departure.

In order to qualify for withholding of removal, an alien “must demonstrate a ‘clear probability’ of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). Consequently, Gonzalez-Soto was required to demonstrate his “life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. To that end, Gonzalez-Soto asserted that his membership in two different social groups made him eligible for withholding of removal. First, he maintained he would likely face persecution in Mexico because the family of a man murdered by his father more than two decades ago allegedly targets him for revenge. Yet, Gonzalez-Soto testified that his mother, uncle, and siblings have continued to reside in Mexico since the murder. The BIA found Gonzalez-Soto’s claim speculative, as no evidence supported a determination he would be persecuted on this ground. The Fifth Circuit found that the evidence did not compel a contrary conclusion.

Gonzalez-Soto’s second claim was that he would likely face persecution in Mexico based on a perception of wealth for having lived in the United States. An alien’s proffered social group must be sufficiently particular and socially visible to be cognizable for purposes of withholding of removal. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786–87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016). “Particularity is determined by ‘whether the proposed group can accurately be described in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons.’” Id. at 786–87. Rejecting this claim, the Court reiterated that it “do[es] not recognize economic extortion as a form of persecution under immigration law, nor do[es] [it] recognize wealthy [citizens of a different nation] as a protected group.” Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Gonzalez-Soto’s petition for review was denied.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Attorney for Petitioner – Gino Mario Mesa, Houston, TX
Attorney for Respondent – W. Daniel Shieh, Washington, DC

 

Become a Member to receive Daily Emails