United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60523

Summary Calendar

Marcela J. Mendez Maldonado, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A215 706 058

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Marcela J. Mendez Maldonado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

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

dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60523 Document: 00516157616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2022
No. 19-60523

2

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

decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 

220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial 

evidence, and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.

Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). 

To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that she is 

unwilling or unable to return to her home country “because of persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A)). 

Mendez Maldonado contends that the BIA erred in determining that 

her proposed social group of Salvadoran women was not cognizable.1

 “[A] 

particular social group must: (1) consist of persons who share a common 

immutable characteristic; (2) be defined with particularity; and (3) be socially 

visible or distinct within the society in question.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 

F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 

227, 237 (BIA 2014)). The category “Salvadoran women” “encompasses a 

wide swath of society crossing many political orientations, lifestyles, and 

identifying factors.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th 

Cir. 2012); Miranda Fuentes v. Garland, 844 F. App’x 779, 780 (5th Cir. 

1 The Government requests, as they did in a previous motion, that we remand this 

case to allow the BIA to decide this question. This Court previously denied the 

Government’s motion to remand. Mendez Maldonado correctly notes in her brief that the 

BIA did address this issue and so remand is inappropriate. Accordingly, we address the 

issue here.

Case: 19-60523 Document: 00516157616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2022
No. 19-60523

3

2021).

2 Absent some additional showing, for instance that Salvadoran 

women nationwide are persecuted because of their gender or a characteristic 

particular to their gender, Mendez Maldonado’s proposed social group is not 

particular. See Chavez-Chilel v. Att’y Gen. United States, --- F. 4th ---, 2021 

WL 5830338, at *4 (3d Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in 

determining that the category Salvadoran women was not cognizable as a 

particular social group. 

Mendez Maldonado next challenges the BIA’s determination that she 

failed to demonstrate a nexus between her family membership and the 

suffered persecution. In determining whether there is a nexus, we examine 

“whether the protected ground is one central reason motivating the 

persecutor, not the persecuted.” Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269 

(5th Cir. 2021). Despite her assertions to the contrary, Mendez Maldonado’s 

testimony reflects that she was harassed by and sexually assaulted by a MS13 gang member because he wanted her to be his girlfriend. In fact, there is 

nothing in the record to suggest that the gang members invaded her home or 

attempted to harm her because of her relationship with her sister. 

Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that she failed to 

demonstrate a nexus between her family membership and the suffered 

persecution. 

Because the BIA did not err in determining that Mendez Maldonado

was not persecuted on account of a protected ground, we need not address

her argument that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to 

protect her or that she could not safely relocate within El Salvador. See 

2 Although an unpublished opinion issued on or after January 1, 1996, is generally 

not controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. 

Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4).

Case: 19-60523 Document: 00516157616 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2022
No. 19-60523

4

Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. 

Ct. 1238 (2021).

Finally, because Mendez Maldonado “failed to establish the less 

stringent ‘well-founded fear’ standard of proof required for asylum relief,” 

she cannot meet the more stringent burden for obtaining withholding of 

removal, and therefore she is unable to demonstrate that the BIA erred in 

disposing of this claim. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 

2012) (quoting Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 253 (4th Cir. 2008)).

Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 19-60523 Document: 00516157616 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2022