United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60734

Summary Calendar

Madian Azarmabeth Gavidia-Jovel; Merida Michell 

Gavidia-Jovel; Jose Kerin Gavidia-Jovel, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 495 159

BIA No. A206 495 160

BIA No. A206 495 161

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Madian Azarmabeth Gavidia-Jovel, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

April 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60734 Document: 00516275507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No. 20-60734

2

affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Her minor 

children, Merida Michell Gavidia-Jovel and Jose Kerin Gavidia-Jovel, natives

and citizens of El Salvador, filed separate applications for relief from removal 

based on the same factual premise as Gavidia-Jovel’s application and are 

included as riders in these proceedings. 

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the immigration 

judge’s underlying decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision. See 

Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact are 

reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 

F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may not reverse a 

factual finding unless the petitioner demonstrates that the evidence is “so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” 

Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411. 

Gavidia-Jovel contends that the BIA erred in determining that her 

proposed particular social group (PSG) of “young Salvadoran women from 

San Vicente, El Salvador, who have been maliciously prosecuted and 

imprisoned by the Salvadoran authorities in order to make them falsely testify 

against gang members” was not legally cognizable. Even if this proposed 

PSG included traits sufficiently independent from the group members’ 

persecution, Gavidia-Jovel fails to demonstrate that the BIA erred in 

determining that she had not submitted sufficient evidence that Salvadorian 

society views members of the PSG as a socially distinct group. See OrellanaMonson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 522 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Because Gavidia-Jovel’s failure to identify a legally cognizable PSG is 

dispositive of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal, see id., we 

need not address her claims related to whether she established past 

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, see INS v. 

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Finally, Gavidia-Jovel has not briefed 

Case: 20-60734 Document: 00516275507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No. 20-60734

3

and thus has abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See 

Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 508 n.5 (5th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60734 Document: 00516275507 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2022