* 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.

REVISED January 27, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60956

Summary Calendar

MARIA GUADALUPE MENDOZA-MARQUEZ; FERNANDO ALONSO

MONTEROSA-MENDOZA; JORGE ALBERTO ALFARO-MENDOZA;

EDGARGO ALEXANDER CALERO-MENDOZA,

Petitioners

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A098 672 188

A098 672 203

A098 672 208

A098 672 215

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Guadalupe Mendoza-Marquez and her three children, Fernando

Alonso Monterosa-Mendoza, Jorge Alberto Alfaro-Mendoza, and Edgargo

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 24, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60956

2

Alexander Calero-Mendoza, petition this court for a review of the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which overturned the Immigration Judge’s

grant of asylum and ordered the petitioners removed to El Salvador. The BIA

concluded that the petitioners had not met their burden of demonstrating

eligibility for relief because they failed to demonstrate that membership in their

family group, which has been targeted by the Mara Salvatrucha gang in El

Salvador, constituted membership in a “particular social group” under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). The BIA concluded that the petitioners’ family lacked the

required social visibility to qualify as a particular social group. Accordingly, the

BIA concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated the required nexus

between their well-founded fear of persecution and a protected ground. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General is authorized, in

his discretion, to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as refugees. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1). An alien is a “refugee” when he is outside of his country and “is

unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or

herself ofthe protection of,that country because of persecution or a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” § 1101(a)(42)(A).

The BIA has provided the following factors to consider when determining

whether a “particular social group” exists: (1) “whether the group’s shared

characteristic gives the members the requisite social visibility to make them

readily identifiable in society” and (2) “whether the group can be defined with

sufficient particularity to delimit its membership.” In re A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24

I. & N. Dec. 69, 69 (BIA 2007). A factor in determining social visibility “is

whether the members of the group are perceived as a group by society.” Matter

of S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 586 (BIA 2008). The BIA rejected arguments that

“persons resistant to gang membership” and “[Salvadoran] youths who have

resisted gang recruitment, or family members of such Salvadoran youth”

constitute social groups, after determining that the proposed groups lacked the
No. 08-60956

3

required social visibility. In re E-A-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 591, 594 (BIA 2007); S-EG-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 582, 587. We will defer to the BIA’s construction of a

statute thatit administers ifthe BIA’s interpretation is reasonable. See Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44

(1984).

The petitioners argue that their family membership places them in a

particular social group because their family membership is an immutable trait.

The BIA’s holding did not rest on a finding regarding the proposed group’s

immutability. The petitioners do not address the issue of social visibility or any

of the administrative cases cited by the BIA in its analysis of the subject. The

petitioners have therefore failed to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s conclusion

that membership in their family does not constitute membership in a “particular

social group” for asylum. Conclusional and inadequately briefed arguments are

waived. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008);

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Even if we consider the petitioners’ argument, it lacks merit. The

petitioners have not demonstrated membership in a particular social group or

that the BIA’s interpretation of that term is unreasonable. See Ramos-Lopez v.

Holder, 563F.3d 855, 859-62 (9th Cir. 2009); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542F.3d

738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008). The petition for review is DENIED.