United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60458

Summary Calendar

Dinabel Elizabeth Gomez-Lara, 

Petitioner,

versus

Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 695 997

Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dinabael Elizabeth Gomez-Lara, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

January 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60458 Document: 00515708534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
20-60458

2

In reviewing the BIA’s decision, the IJ’s underlying decision is 

considered only to the extent the BIA adopted it. See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 

F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de 

novo, Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2014); its factual findings,

for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006).

Asylum is discretionary, and is granted for aliens refusing to return to 

their country based on persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion”. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 

2005). For withholding of removal, an applicant must show “it is more likely 

than not” her life or freedom would be threatened by persecution based upon 

one of the five listed categories—a higher bar than the required showing for 

a successful asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1). 

Gomez presents two grounds for granting asylum or withholding of 

removal: her persecution for being a member of a particular social group, 

which she asserts is “women in Honduras”; and her family and kinship ties. 

Each ground fails. 

In claiming the BIA erred by failing to recognize the particular social 

group of “women in Honduras”, Gomez fails to show error in the IJ’s finding

the purported group lacks the requisite particularity. Orellana-Monson v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521–22 (5th Cir. 2012). 

For her second ground, Gomez asserts she was persecuted because 

she was beaten and raped on account of her kinship ties. This assertion stems 

from the mistaken belief of the Honduran man who raped Gomez in 

retaliation for an alleged murder. Because Gomez did not raise this claim 

before the BIA, she failed to exhaust it. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to 

address the claim. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Case: 20-60458 Document: 00515708534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
20-60458

3

Along the same lines, to the extent Gomez asserts a revised purported social 

group of “a woman of Honduras who has suffered sexual abuse by rape”, the 

issue is unexhausted and cannot be considered. 

In support of her challenge to the denial of CAT relief, Gomez 

contends: if she returns to Honduras, the pattern of retribution to avenge the 

alleged murder will continue; and her experience shows the police are not 

able or willing to protect her. To obtain CAT relief, however, an alien must 

show it is more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to the 

proposed country, and its government would instigate or consent to it. 

Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015).

“[P]otential instances of violence committed by non-governmental 

actors against citizens, together with speculation that the police might not 

prevent that violence, are generally insufficient to prove government 

acquiescence”. Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014). Further, 

“neither the failure to apprehend the persons threatening the alien, nor the 

lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or risk of torture constitute 

sufficient state action for purposes of the [CAT]”. Tamara-Gomez v. 

Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006). In the conclusory two sentences 

in her brief concerning the denial of CAT relief, Gomez has not shown, inter 

alia, the evidence compels the conclusion it is more likely than not she would 

be tortured if removed to Honduras. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493.

DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

Case: 20-60458 Document: 00515708534 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2021