# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60724 Summary Calendar

**Wendy Pineda; Jesus Daniel Solorzano Pineda,**

Petitioners **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 844 952 BIA No. A205 844 955

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Wendy Pined a and her derivative beneficiary, Jesus Daniel Solorzano Pineda , are native s and citizen s of Honduras. She petition s for review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 13, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-60724 Document: 00516127198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2021No. 20

- 60724

2 under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Pineda argue s that she was persecuted by gang members, and fear s future persecution, based on her and Jesus’s membership in particular social groups (PSG s ) defined separately as Honduran women and men “ who fear violence and delinquency in their home coun try

. ”

This court reviews the final decision of the B oard of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and will only consider the decision of the i mmigration judge (I

J) where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Where, as here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion, the IJ’s decision is the final agency decision for purposes of judicial review on a ppeal. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 831

- 32 (5th Cir. 2003). F actual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo, giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration statutes. Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511,
517

- 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Whether an applicant is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal , or relief under the CAT is rev iewed for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). To be eligible for asylum, Pineda must show she is unable or unwilling

to return to her country “because of persecution or a well

- founded fear of
pe rsecution on account of ,” as relevant here “ membership in a [PSG]. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)

. Pineda has failed to show that her proposed PSG s meet the necessary requirements

. S ee Orellana

Monson , 685 F.3d at 518

- 19, 521

. Because she ha s failed to demonstrate entitlement to asylum, she has also failed to demonstrate entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir

. 2002). Case: 20-60724 Document: 00516127198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2021No. 20

- 60724

3 Pineda has also failed to establish that she more likely than not would be tortured with the acquiescence of a governmental official if remove d. See Ramirez

- Mejia v. Lynch , 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); see also Morales v. Sessions , 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017) (defining “torture” for purposes of the CAT)

. Her argument that she will be tortured based on generalized social conditions in Honduras is too speculative to support CAT relief and is insufficient to compel reversal under the substantial evidence standard. See Ramirez

- Mejia , 794 F.3d at 493

- 94. F inally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Pineda’s contention , raised for the first time on appeal, that the agency misapplied the standard of review to her CAT claim. See Avelar

- Oliva v. Barr , 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

. The petition for review is **DENIED**

**.** Case: 20-60724 Document: 00516127198 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2021