# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 60374 Summary Calendar

**Yessica Yesenia Guerrero**

**- Alfaro,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus

**William P. Barr,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 448 815

Before **Jones, Barksdale,** and **Stewart,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Yessica Yesenia Guerrero

- Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of : asylum , withholding of
removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 1, 2020

Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 19-60374 Document: 00515586640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2020No. 19

- 60374

2 In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Orella na

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511,

517

– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Guerrero asserts: the BIA improperly adopted the IJ’s finding that no extraordinary circumstanc es excus ed the late filing of her application for asylum; her membership in the social group she ori ginally alleged to the IJ was sufficient to establish past persecution ; and she is entitled to withholding of removal based on her membership in a newly purported social group

. (Guerrero does not contend the BIA erred in rejecting her request for relief u nder CAT

— any such challenge is therefore
abandoned

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

Guerrero does not dispute she untimely filed her application for asylum more than one year after she last entered the Unit ed States

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)

. Our court do es not have jurisdiction to consider the
fact

- intensive issue of w hether the untimeliness of her application should be
excused. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 59 5 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review determinations of timeliness that are based on findings of fact”).
Regarding Guerrero ’s withholding of removal claim, she does not challenge the conclusions of the IJ and BIA that the social group she originally alleged to the IJ (“Salvadoran women who feared violence and delinquency in their home country”) was not cognizable , and that she failed to show a nexus between any persecution and her group membership. Because she
does not dispute the validity or correc tness of these conclusions, s h e has abandoned any claim of error. See Soadjede , 324 F.3d at 833

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Guerrero’s entitlement to withholding based on her membership in her newly defined social group Case: 19-60374 Document: 00515586640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2020No. 19

- 60374

3 ( “Salvadoran women who, despi te their fear, are willing witnesses against their persecutors but have been turned away by police ”). A n alien must exhaust all administrative remedies available as of right before our court may
review a final order. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (d)(1) . If an issue is asserted for the first time on appeal to the BIA, it is not properly before the BIA and is
unexhausted. See Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 195 n.14 (5th Cir. 2004) (noting that, for the purposes of determining whether a claim was rais ed to the IJ, “[i] t is irrelevant that Petitioners raised claims for [ ] relief before the
BIA ”); see also Milanzi v. Holder , 397 F. App’x 984, 986 (5th Cir. 2010 ). Guerrero did not present her membership in the newly purported social group before the IJ ; instead, she raised the issue for the first time on appeal to the BIA. Accordingly, she did not exhaust administrative remedies. Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Failure to exhaust an issue creates a jurisdictional bar as to that iss ue.”) (citation omitted).

**DISMISSED** IN PART and **DENIED** IN PART

. Case: 19-60374 Document: 00515586640 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/01/2020