United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60544

Summary Calendar

Nancy Mariela Ponce-Medina, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A 202 075 863

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Nancy Ponce-Medina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of her

appeal of an order by an Immigration Judge (“I.J.”) denying her applications 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60544 Document: 00516135187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
No. 20-60544

2

Against Torture. Ponce-Medina, who is represented by counsel, avers that 

she satisfied her burden of establishing her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because she demonstrated a well-founded fear of future 

persecution based on her membership in a particular social group, which she 

identified as the family of her late stepfather, Jaime Canjura Flores, who was 

murdered in El Salvador years after Ponce-Medina was found in the United 

States.

1

We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the I.J.’s decision 

only to the extent that it influenced the BIA. See Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 

861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual 

findings, such as eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner “must show that the 

evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude 

against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).

Although Ponce-Medina addresses the BIA’s determination that she 

failed to establish a nexus between her fear of future harm and a protected 

ground, she failsto address adequately the BIA’s alternative basis for denying 

her asylum claim. Specifically, she does not adequately address the determination that she failed to show either that authorities in El Salvador were 

unable or unwilling to protect her from harm or that she could not reasonably 

avoid the feared persecution by relocating to another area of El Salvador. In 

this regard, her counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction. See

1 Ponce-Medina also challenges the I.J.’s determination that her asylum application

was untimely, but we do not address that issue because it was not addressed by the BIA and 

was not the basis on which the BIA affirmed the I.J.’s decision denying asylum. See 

Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010). All other challenges she

could have raised in this petition are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th 

Cir. 2004).

Case: 20-60544 Document: 00516135187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
No. 20-60544

3

Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, she has 

not shown that substantial evidence compels the conclusion that, for purposes of asylum, she has a well-founded fear of future persecution.2 Additionally, although Ponce-Medina asserts that she is eligible for withholding of 

removal, she fails to show a “clear probability” or that “it is more likely than 

not” that she would be persecuted on the basis of her membership in a particular social group if she returns to El Salvador. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 

1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

2 See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537; Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 

2001) (“[W]hen a person can relocate within [her] country upon return, the extraordinary 

act of granting asylum is not necessary.”); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii), (3)(i); see also Ortiz 

v. Garland, 6 F. 4th 685, 691 (5th Cir. 2021) (declining to address the issue of persecution 

where petitioner could not independently prove that the authorities weres unwilling or 

unable to control violence).

Case: 20-60544 Document: 00516135187 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2021