United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60983

Summary Calendar

Karina Jeannet Temaj-Augustin; Eileen Iselle RamirezTemaj, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 563 916

BIA No. A208 563 917

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Karina Jeannet Temaj-Augustin and her derivative beneficiary, Eileen 

Iselle Ramirez-Temaj, are natives and citizens of Guatemala. They petition 

for review of the denial of their application for asylum and for protection 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 2, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60983 Document: 00515961081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2021
No. 20-60983

2

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They do not challenge the 

denial of their claim for withholding of removal and have therefore 

abandoned that claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 

2003).

This court reviews the final decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) and will only consider the decision of the Immigration Judge 

(IJ) where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 

588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Questions of law are reviewed de novo; factual 

findings, for substantial evidence. Id. at 594; Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 

536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court may 

not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was 

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” 

Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Whether an applicant is eligible for asylum or 

protection under the CAT is a factual finding which, as noted above, is 

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

Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

To be eligible for asylum, the petitioners must show they are unable 

or unwilling to return to their country “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A cognizable PSG 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. Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). Further, 

“the social group must exist independently of the fact of persecution.” Id. at 

236 n.11.

Petitioners argue that substantial evidence exists that, if removed, 

they will suffer persecution on account of Temaj-Augustin’s membership in 

Case: 20-60983 Document: 00515961081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2021
No. 20-60983

3

the particular social group (PSG) of “Guatemalan women who are unable to 

leave their abusive relationship.” This court has cautioned that PSGs cannot 

be circularly defined based on the persecution that their members suffer. See 

Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 232 (5th Cir. 2019). A group is not 

cognizable if it “is defined by, and does not exist independently of, the 

harm.” Id. This court has specifically declined to recognize as particular 

social groups various permutations of groups of women who are subjected to 

domestic abuse. See id. Accordingly, petitioners are ineligible for asylum 

because Temaj-Augustin’s proposed social group is not cognizable.

To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must establish that she is 

more likely than not to be tortured if removed to her home country and that 

the torture would be inflicted or condoned by the state. Chen, 470 at 1138-

39; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Petitioners have not made this showing. See 

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

Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017) (defining “torture” for purposes 

of the CAT). Petitioners’ argument that they will be tortured based on 

generalized social conditions in Guatemala is too speculative to support CAT 

relief and is insufficient to compel reversal under the substantial evidence 

standard. See Ramirez-Mejia, 794 F.3d at 493-94.

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60983 Document: 00515961081 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2021