IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60324

Summary Calendar

SONIA GUADALUPE SERRANO-AMAYA; GRISELDA EMERLINDA 

SERRANO-HERNANDEZ,

Petitioners

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 377 869

BIA No. A208 377 870

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sonia Guadalupe Serrano-Amaya and Griselda Emerlinda SerranoHernandez (the Petitioners), seek review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen removal 

proceedings. They claim that (1) they received ineffective assistance of counsel 

in connection with their removal proceedings that amounted to a violation of 

 

* 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

June 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2019
No. 18-60324

2

due process, and (2) they are entitled to relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT).

Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 

(5th Cir. 2000). We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 

(5th Cir. 2005).

Ineffective assistance of counsel claim

The Petitioners assert that their counsel in removal proceedings 

performed deficiently because he failed to assert that they belonged to the 

particular social groups of “informants” and “immediate or nuclear family 

members” of Serrano-Amaya’s husband, who was killed when he refused to join 

a gang. They contend that they were persecuted in the past, and that they fear 

persecution and are likely to be persecuted in the future, based on their 

membership in these particular social groups. They argue that, had counsel 

provided constitutionally adequate representation, they would have been 

granted asylum or withholding of removal.

To prevail on such a claim, the Petitioners must demonstrate substantial 

prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance. See GutierrezMorales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). Proving substantial 

prejudice requires a prima facie showing that, absent counsel’s deficient 

performance, the applicant would have been entitled to the relief sought. 

Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).

Here, the record reflects that Serrano-Amaya reported the murder of her 

husband, and several gang members were subsequently imprisoned for the 

killing. As the BIA determined, threats were made against Serrano-Amaya 

based on the desire of one or more gang members to avoid, or extract revenge

for, suffering the consequences of their criminal behavior. Thus, assuming 

 Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2019
No. 18-60324

3

arguendo that “informants” and “immediate nuclear family members” of 

Serrano-Amaya’s husband constitute particular social groups, the Petitioners 

cannot show substantial prejudice from counsel’s failure to propose such 

groups because aliens who are targeted for personal reasons, including 

revenge, are not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Thuri 

v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004).

Claim Under the CAT

In support of their CAT claim, the Petitioners assert that gangs in El 

Salvador receive the cooperation and assistance of public officials. They note 

that Franklin, the gang leader who participated in the murder of SerranoAmaya’s husband, was released from prison after being convicted of the killing 

and that he is free to pursue them.

To obtain relief under the CAT, “an applicant must show that it is more 

likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to his home country.” 

Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The torture must be “inflicted by or at the 

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 

person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

As the discussion above shows, gang members who killed SerranoAmaya’s husband were prosecuted and imprisoned by the state. Such evidence 

supports the denial of a claim for relief under the CAT. See Ramirez-Mejia 

v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 494 (5th Cir. 2015).

In view of the foregoing, the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen was 

“not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, 

or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any 

perceptible rational approach.” Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60324 Document: 00514985749 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2019