United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Pineda and her derivative beneficiary, Jesus Daniel Solorzano 

Pineda, are natives and citizens of Honduras. She petitions for review of the 

denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60724 Document: 00516127198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2021
No. 20-60724

2

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Pineda argues that she was 

persecuted by gang members, and fears future persecution, based on her and 

Jesus’s membership in particular social groups (PSGs) defined separately as 

Honduran women and men “who fear violence and delinquency in their 

home country.”

This court reviews the final decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) and will only consider the decision of the immigration judge 

(IJ) 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 appeal. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831-32 

(5th Cir. 2003). Factual 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 reviewed 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 

persecution 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 PSGs meet the necessary requirements. See OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d at 518-19, 521. Because she has 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: 12/13/2021
No. 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 removed. 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. Finally, 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