United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60104

Maria Elisabet Velasquez-De Hernandez; Claudia 

Georgina Hernandez-Velasquez; Raul Edgardo 

Hernandez-Velasquez, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A202 030 918

Agency No. A202 030 919

Agency No. A206 759 310

Before Jolly, Willett, and Englehardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Elisabet Velasquez-De Hernandez is a native and citizen of El 

Salvador. In 2014, she and her children—Claudia and Raul—were charged 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60104 Document: 00516164870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60104

2

with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as aliens present in the 

United States without being admitted or paroled. Velasquez-De Hernandez

later filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal based on 

membership in a particular social group, which her attorney defined as 

“family.” She listed Claudia as a derivative beneficiary of her asylum 

application. Raul, on the other hand, filed an individual asylum application

that mirrored his mother’s. The family’s cases were later consolidated.

Petitioner1 now seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum 

and withholding of removal. She argues (1) substantial evidence does not 

support the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show a sufficient nexus 

between persecution and her putative social group, (2) her family-based

social group is sufficiently cognizable, and (3) if all else fails, she is entitled to 

humanitarian asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

None of Petitioner’s arguments merit relief. First, she has not shown 

that the evidence presented “‘was so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could fail to find’ the nexus requirement satisfied.” Berrios-Bruno 

Garland, No. 18-60276, 2021 WL 3624766, at *4 (Aug. 16, 2021) (per curiam) 

(citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482–84 (1992)); accord OrellanaMonson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012)). Substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s conclusion that Salvadorian gang members were not 

sufficiently motivated by Petitioner’s family ties when targeting her as a part 

of their criminal enterprise. See, e.g., Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 

265, 270 (5th Cir. 2021). Though Petitioner has undoubtedly endured tragic 

1 We refer only to Maria Velasquez-De Hernandez (unless otherwise specified) 

because she is the lead petitioner, and her children’s claims are dependent on the same 

facts and circumstances. See, e.g., Munyandamutsa v. Ashcroft, 84 Fed. App’x 430, 430 (5th 

Cir. 2003). 

Case: 20-60104 Document: 00516164870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60104

3

circumstances, we are not permitted “to re-weigh evidence or substitute our 

own factual determinations” where substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s nexus conclusion. Berrios-Bruno, 2021 WL 3624766, at *4 (citing 

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)). We are here 

confronted with such a case.

2 See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005). 

Second, we lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s remaining 

claims—that she is entitled to either humanitarian asylum or protection 

under the Convention Against Torture—because she did not exhaust her 

administrative remedies. See, e.g., Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Petitioner did not invoke the Convention Against Torture before 

the IJ, nor did she urge humanitarian asylum before the BIA. We cannot 

therefore consider these claims.

Finally, we pause to note that Petitioner’sfailure to establish eligibility 

for asylum or withholding of removal necessarily defeats her children’s 

claims, which are dependent on the same facts and circumstances.

For these reasons, the petition is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

2 This moots any need for us to consider Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether 

her family-based social group was sufficiently cognizable, which was presented to but 

similarly unaddressed by the BIA. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Neither 

must we independently analyze the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was ineligible for 

withholding of removal, which imposes a higher bar than that for asylum. See, e.g., Majd v. 

Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 n.2 

(5th Cir. 2004)).

Case: 20-60104 Document: 00516164870 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2022