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

No. 21

- 60329 Summary Calendar

**Noemi Rebolloso Martinez,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

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

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 259 079

Before **King, Costa,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Noemi Rebolloso Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 June 27, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2022No. 21

- 60329

2 Conventio n Against Torture (CAT). We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. See Singh
v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
The IJ determined that Martinez was ineligible for asylum because she did not file her application within one year of her arrival in the United States.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). T he BIA de termined that the IJ’s untimeliness finding was dispositive since Martinez waived any challenge on appeal. Similarly, Martinez abandons any challenge to the BIA’s waiver and untimeliness findings by failing to challenge the m before this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Contrary to Martinez’s argument, t he BIA’s conclusion t hat Martinez’s proposed particular social group ( PSG ) , “Mexican women who don’t have the protection of a male figure” was not cognizable because it
lacked social distinction aligns with this court’s jurisprudence. See Jaco v.
Garland , 24 F.4th 395, 407 (5 th Cir. 2021) ; Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 521

- 22 (5th Cir. 2012)

. Even assuming Martinez’s proposed PSG was cognizable, Martinez ’s testimony that she and a male friend were robbed by two masked gang members belies her assertion that she was targeted
because she was a female unaccompanied by a male protective figure. Instead, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Martinez was the victim of a random act of violence perpetrated by gang members and
her fear of similar victimiza tion recuring in the future is insufficient to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Gonzales

- Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Ramirez

- Mejia v. Lynch , 794 F.3d 485, 492

- 93 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 792

- 93 (5th Cir. 2004)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s unexhausted claim s that she w i ll be targeted on account of political opinion and that she established a well

founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground based on a Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2022No. 21

- 60329

3 pattern or practice of persecution of persons similarly situated to her

. See Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) ; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)

. Martinez does not challenge the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s
determination tha t she failed to demonstrate eligibility for protection under
the CAT. She also fails to challenge the BIA’s decision not to reinstate the IJ’s grant of voluntary departure. The claims are thus deemed abandoned. See Soadjede , 324 F.3d at 833. Accordingl y, the petition for review is
**DENIED IN PART** and **DISMISSED IN PART** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2022