Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisca Morales MACIAS, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60137 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 2, 2017
    Matthew Paul Nickson, Houston, TX, for Petitioner
    Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Francisca Morales Macias seeks our review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for withholding of removal. She claims a reasonable fear of persecution because of her political opinions and her membership in two particular social groups if she is returned to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) & 1231(b)(3); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Morales Macias’s assertions, the BIA did consider and reject her contentions with respect to her fear of persecution on account of her political opinions in opposition to domestic violence.

The BIA ruled that Morales Macias had not shown that she was unable to leave her domestic relationship and therefore had not shown a reasonable fear of persecution based on membership in a social group of Mexican women defined by that characteristic. The BIA based its decision on evidence presented and was substantially reasonable. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Morales Macias has not shown that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Neither has Morales Macias shown that the BIA erred in concluding that her second claimed social group — Mexican women viewed as property by virtue of a domestic relationship — lacked sufficient particularity. See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214, 217, 224 (BIA 2014), rev. granted in part, vacated in part, on other grounds, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2012).

Morales Macias raises no issue with respect to the denial of her request for relief under the Convention Against Torture, so she has abandoned that claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

As the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we deny her petition for review. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Carbajal-Gonzalez, 78 F.3d at 197. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R, 47.5.4.