United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________ 

No. 23-60579

___________ 

Elda Celina Castillo-Bonilla; Edvar Castillo-Bonilla,

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

______________________________ 

Petition for Review from an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A208 997 920

Agency No. A208 997 919

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Elda Celina Castillo-Bonilla and her son, natives and citizens of 

Honduras, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of 

their application for relief.1 The government has moved summarily to deny 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

1 Castillo’s son was a minor at the time she filed an application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 18, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60579 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024
No. 22-60277

2

the petition. It argues that the record supports the BIA’s determination that 

Castillo is not eligible for asylum because, inter alia, Castillo failed to 

establish that she faces persecution in Honduras based on her membership in 

a particular social group.2 This court reviews the factual conclusion that an 

alien is not eligible for asylum using the substantial evidence standard. 

Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Zhao v. 

Gonzalez, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)). 

“The summary affirmance procedure is generally reserved for cases 

in which the parties concede that the issues are foreclosed by circuit 

precedent.” United States v. Uduu, 564 F. App’x 127, 129 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Castillo makes no such concession here, and the issues raised are not 

immediately recognizable as foreclosed by this court’s precedents. For these 

reasons, we DENY the government’s motion for summary disposition.

Nonetheless, after considering the parties’ arguments, no further 

briefing is necessary to conclude that there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support the BIA’s determination that Castillo was ineligible for 

asylum. Indeed, as to the only particular social group challenged on appeal, 

Here, only Castillo’s application for asylum is at issue. She has waived any challenge to the 

denial of relief as to withholding of removal and CAT protection, as she fails to mention 

these claims in either her opening brief or her response to the Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance. See Garcia v. Garland, No. 22-60552, 2023 WL 5040975, at *1 (5th 

Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (holding that a failure adequately to brief issues on appeal from the BIA 

constitutes a waiver) (citing Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008)). 

2 Castillo asserted to the IJ that she was a member of 14 proposed particular social 

groups, including “Relative[s] of Junior Alberto Duartes Castillo,” her nephew who was 

murdered in Honduras in 2010. The IJ found these putative social groups were not 

cognizable for several reasons: They lacked particularity or social distinction (or both); the 

social groups were impermissibly defined by the harm; and Castillo failed to demonstrate a 

nexus between any claimed group and the harm she experienced or feared. On appeal to 

the BIA, Castillo raised only the proposed social group relating to her familial relationship 

with Junior Alberto Duartes Castillo. The BIA thus found that Castillo waived the 

remaining proposed social groups. 

Case: 23-60579 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2024
No. 22-60277

3

the BIA properly adopted the IJ’s finding that Castillo’s familial relationship 

“was only incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate” to the primary 

reason the Honduran gang members harassed her, which was extortion. 

Further, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the BIA’s determination on this 

point did not rest on the since-vacated decisions in A-B-I, 21 I. & N. Dec. 316 

(U.S. Att’y Gen. 2018) or L-E-A-II, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 

2019). See Aguilar-Manzanares v. Garland, No. 21-60891, 2022 WL 3136980, 

at *2 (rejecting a similar argument when the BIA “expressly noted in its 

decision that Matter of A-B-[I] had been vacated after the IJ issued its 

decision” and had “confirmed that it had not relied on the . . . vacated 

decision in deciding [the] appeal”).

Accordingly, we DISPENSE with further briefing and DENY the 

petition for review.

Case: 23-60579 Document: 41-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2024