United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60363

Summary Calendar

Maria Jeannette Penaloza-Megana, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A087 770 503

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Jeannette Penaloza-Megana, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing her appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying 

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60363 Document: 00516374146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
No. 21-60363

2

(CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying 

decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA’s decision. See Singh v. Sessions, 

880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). 

The IJ and the BIA determined that Penaloza-Megana’s proposed 

particular social group (PSG), which was based on family membership, was 

not cognizable; additionally, the agency determined that Penaloza-Megana 

had not established a nexus between her membership in a PSG and the harm 

she experienced in the past or her fear of future harm. Penaloza-Megana 

argues that a remand is warranted for a proper analysis of her proposed 

PSG because, in making their determinations, both the IJ and the BIA relied 

on a case that has since been overruled by the Attorney General (AG). 

See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I & N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), vacated by Matter of LE-A-, 28 I & N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021). 

We need not resolve the cognizability of a PSG before addressing the 

dispositive nexus issue. See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268-69 

(5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022); Martinez Manzanares 

v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Revencu v. Sessions, 895 

F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (Aug. 2, 2018). Penaloza-Megana 

has abandoned any challenge with respect to the dispositive nexus issue by 

failing to brief it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Therefore, a remand is not required for consideration of the cognizability of 

the proposed PSG. 

Further, a remand is not warranted due to the BIA’s reliance on the 

now-vacated decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316, 340 (A.G. 2018), 

vacated by Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). The BIA cited 

that case merely to signal that, given its determination as to the dispositive 

nexus issue, it was unnecessary to address other elements of her claim. 

Case: 21-60363 Document: 00516374146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
No. 21-60363

3

Penaloza-Megana’s remaining attack on the agency’s denial of her 

claim for withholding of removal concerns the agency’s treatment of the 

testimony of her expert witness; she contends that the IJ and the BIA erred 

by reaching a determination contrary to the expert’s opinion without a proper 

analysis. However, the expert’s testimony had no bearing on the dispositive 

nexus issue; it was relevant only to the unrelated question whether the 

Mexican government would be unable or unwilling to control PenalozaMegana’s persecutors. Accordingly, we need not consider the issue. SeeINS 

v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

Finally, Penaloza-Megana has not briefed and thus has abandoned any 

challenge to the denial of her claim for protection under the CAT. See 

Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60363 Document: 00516374146 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2022