United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60341

Summary Calendar

____________

Maria Guadalupe Leiva; Keiri Nayeli Paiz-Leiva; Melisa 

Naome Paiz-Leiva; Nehemias Paiz-Villalobos; Hellen 

Paiz-Leiva, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A208 762 650, A208 762 651, 

A208 762 652, A208 762 659, A208 762 660 

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Guadalupe Leiva, her husband, and three minor children are 

natives and citizens of El Salvador. She petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision which, inter alia: affirmed the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60341 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
No. 23-60341

2

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding 

of removal; and denied her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. She 

also contends, for the first time, that the IJ violated her due-process rights by 

failing to reformulate her proposed particular social groups (PSG). (Leiva’s 

family members are derivatives on her application for relief.) 

Leiva fails to brief, and has therefore abandoned, any challenge to the 

BIA’s: denial of her claim under the Convention Against Torture; and 

rejection of her jurisdictional assertion. See, e.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 

F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (treating unbriefed issues as abandoned).

Our court reviews the BIA’s decision, considering the IJ’s decision 

only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 

224 (5th Cir. 2018). Findings of fact, including the applicant’s ineligibility 

for asylum and withholding of removal, are reviewed under the substantialevidence standard. E.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006). Under this standard, our court “will accept the BIA’s factual findings 

unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail 

to find otherwise”. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019) 

(citation omitted). 

To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, inter alia, that 

“race, religion, nationality, membership in a [PSG], or political opinion was 

or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); accord Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th 

Cir. 2012). Withholding of removal requires showing the applicant would 

more likely than not be persecuted on account of one of those protected 

grounds. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021).

Before the IJ and BIA, Leiva, the lead petitioner, asserted her husband 

was a member of the following proposed PSGs: former Salvadoran police 

officers and witnesses to criminal activity of the MS-13 gang. She sought 

Case: 23-60341 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
No. 23-60341

3

asylum and withholding of removal based on her relationship to her husband. 

The IJ and BIA found Leiva was not a member of her proposed PSGs and her 

husband’s membership could not be imputed to her. Leiva’s counseled brief 

does not address those findings, which are dispositive of her claims for 

asylum and withholding of removal. See, e.g., Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 

F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (concluding unbriefed contentions are 

forfeited); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring persecution on 

protected ground). 

Her belated (and arguably unexhausted) due-process contention is 

meritless because neither the IJ nor the BIA had an obligation to reformulate 

her proposed PSGs. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 151–52 (5th 

Cir. 2019) (upholding BIA rule requiring applicants give exact delineation of 

proposed PSG); see also Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 

2020) (“[T]he IJ does not have a duty to act as an advocate for the alien”.). 

Review of Leiva’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is de novo. 

See, e.g., Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014). The 

BIA denied the claim because Leiva failed to comply with the procedural 

requirements outlined in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 

1988). Strict compliance with those requirements is mandatory. See, e.g.,

Hernandez-Ortez, 741 F.3d at 647–48. Leiva does not contest the BIA’s 

conclusion that she failed to comply with Lozada’s requirements and 

therefore waives the dispositive issue. See, e.g., Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833

(treating unbriefed issues as waived). 

DENIED.

Case: 23-60341 Document: 44-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2024