United States Court of Appeals

for 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 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 27, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 21-60329

2

Convention 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). The BIA determined 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 them before this court. See 

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Contrary to Martinez’s argument, the BIA’s conclusion that 

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 (5th 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 victimization 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 claims that she will 

be targeted on account of political opinion and that she established a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground based on a 

Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 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 that 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. Accordingly, 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