# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 1 60 BIA No. A206 495 1 61

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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 April 11, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60734 Document: 00516275507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022No. 20

- 60734

2 affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Her mi nor children , Merida Michell Gavidia

- Jovel and Jose Kerin Gavidia

- Jovel , native s and citizen s of El Salvador, filed separate applications for relief from removal based on the same factual premise as Gavidia

- Jo vel ’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 rea ch 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 S alvador, 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 Orellana

Monson 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 , s ee INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)

. Finally, Gavidia

- Jovel has not briefed Case: 20-60734 Document: 00516275507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022No. 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 f or review is **DENIED**

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