United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60973

Summary Calendar

Ruth Noemi Guzman-Fuentes; Bridgett Azeneth 

Gutierrez-Guzman, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A209 293 597

BIA No. A209 293 598

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ruth Noemi Guzman-Fuentes and her minor child, Bridgett Azeneth 

Gutierrez-Guzman, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal 

*

Pursuantto 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set 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

November 30, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60973 Document: 00516112206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2021
No. 20-60973

2

from a decision by an immigration judge (IJ) denying their applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). In her application, which listed Gutierrez-Guzman

as a derivative beneficiary, Guzman-Fuentes argued that a police officer 

murdered six members of her husband’s family and that she was afraid to 

return to El Salvador because she feared she would be targeted due to her 

membership in a particular social group, namely, the immediate family of 

Reynario Gutierrez, her husband. 

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th 

Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 

444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not 

overturn a factual finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. 

Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Several of the Petitioners’ claims are abandoned or unreviewable. 

First, the Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the denial of their 

withholding of removal and CAT claims by failing to brief them. See 

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

because the BIA based its decision on Guzman-Fuentes’s failure to 

demonstrate a nexus between the feared persecution and her membership in 

the particular social group of her husband’s family, the Petitioners’ 

arguments that Guzman-Fuentes demonstrated a subjective fear of 

persecution that was objectively reasonable and that relocation would be 

unreasonable are not before the court. See Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 916 

(5th Cir. 1981).

The Petitioners argue that the BIA and IJ were required to determine 

whether Guzman-Fuentes established a well-founded fear of future 

Case: 20-60973 Document: 00516112206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2021
No. 20-60973

3

persecution by considering whether she demonstrated a subjective fear of 

persecution that was objectively reasonable. However, the BIA was 

permitted to deny her claim based on the finding that she did not demonstrate 

the requisite nexus. See, e.g., Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 349-

50 (5th Cir. 2006); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

Because the Petitioners largely fail to address the BIA’s nexus finding, this

issue is likewise abandoned. See Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448 n.1.

Even if the issue is not abandoned, substantial evidence supports the 

BIA’s finding that Guzman-Fuentes failed to demonstrate a nexus between 

the feared persecution and her membership in the particular social group of 

her husband’s family. See Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 769; see also 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Guzman-Fuentes testified that she did not know the officer’s motive for 

targeting members of her husband’s family. Further, she believed at least 

two of the murdered family members were affiliated with gangs and that the 

officer was involved with a group of police officers who targeted gang 

members. She also stated that she believed two of the family members were 

targeted because they sought information about the deaths of their loved 

ones. While Guzman-Fuentes produced some evidence to indicate that the 

police officer was involved in murdering her husband’s family members, the 

record contains no evidence demonstrating that the officer harbored an 

animus toward the family. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-93 

(5th Cir. 2015); Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 117 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Given the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60973 Document: 00516112206 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2021