[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11631

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A206-622-169

BRENDY ASCENCIO-CORADO, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(December 27, 2019)

Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Brendy Ascencio-Corado, a citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) 

denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. Ascencio-Corado argues that the BIA erred 

when it retroactively applied Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018),

because agency rules should apply only prospectively given their close tie to 

legislation. 

I.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ascencio-Corado is a native and citizen of Guatemala, born July 16, 1982, in 

Jalpatagua, Guatemala. In 2010, she met her husband, Josue Gilberto Pacheco 

Lopez. They dated for three years before she and her two children from a previous 

relationship moved in with Pacheco Lopez in July of 2013. One month later, 

Pacheco Lopez began to abuse her and control her life. He dictated how AscencioCorado could dress and whether she could wear makeup at her job. He physically 

and verbally abused her in both private and public. For example, Pacheco Lopez

(1) once hit Ascencio-Corado in the face with an umbrella at a bus stop; (2) put her 

in a headlock upon picking her up from work; and (3) hit her in front of his mother 

and grandfather. In private, Pacheco Lopez would rape her daily, and if she 

attempted to refuse him, he would hit her and she believed he would kill her. 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 2 of 8 
3

During this time, Ascencio-Corado continued to work, even though Pacheco Lopez 

did not want her to. However, she eventually quit her job because Pacheco Lopez 

continuously pursued her while she was at work and would abuse her physically 

when he came to her workplace. Ascencio-Corado also sent her children to live 

with another family member because she did not want them to see Pacheco Lopez 

abuse her. 

After five or six months of living together, Pacheco Lopez confessed to 

Ascencio-Corado that he was a “gang member” and “a murderer.” He admitted 

that he had killed his former girlfriend because of her affiliation with another gang, 

and, when a potential gang member refused to join, Pacheco Lopez threw him 

down a ravine. Around the time of this confession, Ascencio-Corado tried to leave 

Pacheco Lopez for the first of many times. She was largely unsuccessful because

each time she voiced her intention to leave, he would threaten to kill her and her 

children. Ascencio-Corado was also afraid of Pacheco Lopez’s connections, 

through his gang, to the police.

She tried to leave him five times in total. The first time, in November 2013, 

she told Pacheco Lopez she could not take it anymore because he was going to kill 

her. He responded by saying she did not know who she was messing with. 

Ascencio-Corado did not physically leave the house that first time because she was 

scared. The other four times she tried to leave him, she told him—when he was 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 3 of 8 
4

calm—that it was best if they separated, but he replied with verbal threats. She 

finally separated from him on January 5, 2015, because she “made a decision either 

to live or to die.” While Ascencio-Corado was waiting at a bus stop, Pacheco 

Lopez arrived—very drunk—grabbed her by the head, and beat her. While he was 

beating her, a motorcycle drove by. The biker saw what was happening, stopped, 

and told Pacheco Lopez to stop or he would call the police. Pacheco Lopez 

released Ascencio-Corado and she left, bleeding. She then went to a friend’s house 

to live for about a month.

However, Pacheco Lopez found her at the friend’s house, forced her to let 

him inside, and beat her. She left and relocated eight hours away to her mother’s 

home. Pacheco Lopez searched for Ascencio-Corado, but never found her at this 

location. She never reported the abuse she suffered to the Guatemalan police 

because, if she had, Pacheco Lopez would “immediately” find out. 

Ascencio-Corado then left for the United States, where she entered near 

Hidalgo, Texas, around February 28, 2014, and was detained by the Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”). Pacheco Lopez does not know Ascencio-Corado is 

in the United States, and she fears returning to Guatemala because she believes he 

will kill her. 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 4 of 8 
5

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

DHS commenced removal proceedings on March 21, 2014, when it served 

Ascencio-Corado with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging her as removable 

from the United States for being present without having been admitted or paroled. 

Ascencio-Corado appeared pro se before the San Antonio Immigration Court on 

May 12, 2014, and admitted the factual allegations in the NTA. She timely filed 

her Form I-589 Application for Asylum under Section 208 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”), and timely filed her applications for withholding of 

removal and CAT protection. 

On December 11, 2017, the IJ issued a decision denying her application for 

asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT, and ordered her 

removed to Guatemala. In explaining its decision, the IJ found that AscencioCorado was not credible. The IJ also found that her proposed “particular social 

group” (“PSG”) of “women of Guatemala who are unable to leave their 

relationship” was a cognizable PSG, but the IJ held that she did not establish her 

membership within that PSG nor that her fear of future harm was caused by her 

membership within the PSG. The IJ also held that her fear of returning to 

Guatemala was not objectively reasonable. 

On December 26, 2017, Ascencio-Corado timely appealed the IJ’s decision 

to the BIA. The BIA issued a decision on March 13, 2019, affirming the IJ’s 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 5 of 8 
6

determination that Ascencio-Corado did not meet her burden of proof to qualify for 

asylum. Applying Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), the BIA 

reversed the IJ’s determination that Ascencio-Corado’s PSG was cognizable. It 

then upheld the IJ’s decision that Ascencio-Corado did not prove her fear of future 

harm was caused by her membership in the PSG she proposed. Finally, the BIA 

declined to terminate Ascencio-Corado’s proceedings based on her argument that 

the NTA issued in her case did not list the time and place of her initial removal 

hearing. 

Ascencio-Corado timely appealed the BIA’s determination to this Court. 

See INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). 

II.

Ascencio-Corado’s only argument on appeal is that the BIA erred in 

retroactively applying Matter of A-B- to her appeal to hold that her proposed PSG

of “women of Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not 

cognizable.1

 She requests that her petition be remanded to the BIA for further 

consideration “without the impermissible retroactive reliance on Matter of A-B-.” 

The Government argues that Ascencio-Corado waived this argument by failing to 

1 We need not address the government’s argument that we do not have jurisdiction to 

review the denial of Ascencio-Corado’s application for CAT protection because she has not 

raised this issue. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 682 (11th Cir. 2014) 

(“Abandonment of an issue can also occur when passing references appear . . . [as] mere 

‘background’ to the appellant’s main arguments.”). 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 6 of 8 
7

argue that Matter of A-B- should not be applied retroactively before the BIA, and, 

in the alternative, that the BIA properly applied Matter of A-B- because it did not 

announce a new agency rule and simply reiterated BIA precedent. 

Before addressing Ascencio-Corado’s arguments on the merits, we must 

review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 

F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). We conclude that we need not address whether 

the BIA properly applied Matter of A-B- retroactively because we lack jurisdiction 

to hear Ascencio-Corado’s claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised 

in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted her administrative 

remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). In other words, we “lack jurisdiction to 

consider claims that have not been raised before the BIA.” Sundar v. INS, 328 

F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003).

Matter of A-B- was issued approximately two months before AscencioCorado submitted her brief appealing the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In that brief, 

Ascencio-Corado argued that “her proposed group is still cognizable, even after the 

ghastly decision rendered by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 

316 (A.G. 2018).” She failed to address whether Matter of A-B- applied 

retroactively, therefore depriving the BIA of the opportunity to fully consider her 

claims. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 7 of 8 
8

We have previously rejected a failure-to-exhaust argument when the 

underlying claim is based on the text of the BIA’s decision, but Ascencio-Corado’s 

claim is different from the “reasoned consideration” claims we addressed in 

Indrawati. See 779 F.3d at 1299. There, we held it was “facially nonsensical” to 

fault the petitioner for not raising an argument about the lack of reasoned 

consideration displayed by a decision that was not yet in existence. Id. As 

described above, Ascencio-Corado’s decision to handle Matter of A-B- by arguing 

her PSG was still cognizable “does not constitute grounds for reversal or remand 

that arose only after the issuance of the BIA’s decision.” See Munguia-Mejia v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 781 F. App’x 857, 860 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (per 

curiam). Rather, she chose to make one argument regarding Matter of A-B- and 

chose to forego the argument she raises now. This means the BIA did not have an 

opportunity to fully consider the “core issue now on appeal,” and we do not have 

jurisdiction to hear her claim. Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297; cf. Guzman-Garcia v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 760 F. App’x 896, 898 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (per 

curiam) (holding petitioner did not satisfy “core issue” exhaustion requirement 

when he generally raised an issue before the BIA but “failed to exhaust the more 

specific argument” he raised before this Court). Accordingly, we must deny 

Ascencio-Corado’s petition for review. 

PETITION DENIED. 

Case: 19-11631 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 8 of 8