IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60200

Summary Calendar

SONIA CALDERON-LUCAS; DARLIN ANAI CALDERON-CALDERON,

Petitioners

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 371 037

BIA No. A208 371 038

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guatemalan citizens Sonia Calderon-Lucas and her minor child, Darlin 

Anai Calderon-Calderon, entered this country without inspection and applied 

for asylum and withholding of removal, arguing that they experienced past 

persecution and held a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala based 

on their membership in a particular social group. The immigration judge (IJ) 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60200 Document: 00514401115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2018
No. 17-60200

2

denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their 

appeal on the merits. They now petition for review of that decision.

Although we have authority to review only the BIA’s decision, we can 

“consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA.” Masih v. 

Mukasey, 536 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2008). We review the BIA’s factual 

findings, such as the finding that an alien is not eligible for asylum or

withholding of removal, for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 

1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we will not reverse the BIA’s 

decision unless we conclude “not only that the evidence supports a contrary 

conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

To qualify for asylum, the petitioners must demonstrate that they are 

unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution and that their membership in a particular social 

group “was or will be at least one central reason for the persecution.” OrellanaMonson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). To qualify for withholding 

of removal, they must demonstrate a clear probability that, if returned to 

Guatemala, their life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on 

account of their membership in a particular social group. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 

389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004).

To show that they were persecuted or face future persecution based on 

their membership in a particular social group, the petitioners “must show that 

they are members of a group of persons that share a common immutable 

characteristic that they either cannot change or should not be required to 

change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.” 

Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). A proffered social group must also be sufficiently particular and 

 Case: 17-60200 Document: 00514401115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2018
No. 17-60200

3

socially distinct to be cognizable. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 

784, 786-87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016).

The BIA specifically concluded that the petitioners’ “proposed group 

lacks social distinction,” as the record did not establish that it was “perceived 

as a group by Guatemalan society.” The petitioners have not directed us to any 

evidence, nor has our review of the record revealed any evidence, that their 

proposed social group would be seen as a recognizable, distinct group in 

Guatemalan society. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 522. Their conclusory 

assertion to the contrary is insufficient to compel a conclusion different from 

that of the BIA. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Accordingly, the petition for 

review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60200 Document: 00514401115 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2018