# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 t he 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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 12/17/2021No. 20

- 60544

2 Against Torture. Ponce

- Medina , who is represented by counsel, a ver s that she satisfied her burden of establishing her eligibility for asylum an d with

hold ing of removal because she demonstrated a well

- founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in a particular social group , which s he identified as the family of her late stepfather, Jaime Canjura Flores , who was murdered in El Salv ador 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 l egal conclusions de novo and factual findings, such as eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal , for sub

stan tial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner “m ust 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 fails to a ddress a dequately the BIA’s alternative basis for denying her asylum claim

. Specifically, she does not adequately address the deter

min ation that she failed to show either that authorities in El Salvador were unable or unwilling to p rotect her from harm or that she could not reasonably avoid the feared persecution by relocating to another area of El Salvador. In this regard, h er counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction

. See

1 Ponce

- Medina also challenges the I

. J

. ’s determination that her asylum appli cation
was un timely , but we do not address that issue because it w as 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 ch allenges 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: 12/17/2021No. 20

- 60544

3 Beasley v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986) . Accordingly, she has not shown that sub stantial evidence compels the conclusion that , for pur

poses of asylum, she has a well

- founded f ear of future persecution. 2 Addi

tionally , although Ponce

- Medina asserts that she is eligible for withholding of

re moval, 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 membe rship in a par

ticular 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, t he 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 per son 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 whe re petitioner could not i ndependently prove that the authorities were s unwilling or unable to control violence). Case: 20-60544 Document: 00516135187 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2021