# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 60871 Summary Calendar

Delmy Esmeralda Aldana

- Ramirez; Keydi Cristal Aldana

- Ramirez; Josue Isaac Estrada

- Aldana,

Petitioners ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 861 397 BIA No. A209 861 398 BIA No. A209 861 399

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4.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 February 15, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60871 Document: 00516203972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2022No. 20

- 60871

2 Delmy Esmerelda Aldana

- Ramirez , a native and citizen of Honduras , petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Included in her applicati ons as derivative beneficiaries are her children Keydi Cristal Aldana

- Ramirez and Josue Isaac Estrada

- Aldana

. We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3 d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings , including the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection , are reviewed under the substantial evidence test, meaning that this court may not overturn factual findings unless the evidence compe ls a contrary conclusion. Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) . Questions of law are reviewed de

novo
. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007).
Aldana

- Ramirez ’s asylum claim based on membership in the particular ized soci al group (PSG) of “Honduran women who are unable to leave a domestic relationship” fails because that PSG is not cognizable

. See Gonzales

- Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219, 232 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that “Honduran women unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable)

. Likewise, s ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Aldana

Ramirez’s second PSG is not cognizable because “ Honduran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship” lacks particularity. See id. at 229. Furthermore, the PSG is not sufficiently defined independently of the harm. See i d. Aldana

- Ramirez’s asylum claim based on the political opinion of “ opposition to unchallenged m ale dominance and aggression ” similarly fails because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that she was a victim of domestic violence and not targeted because of any actual or imputed political opinions. See Case: 20-60871 Document: 00516203972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2022No. 20

- 60871

3 Ontunez

- Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002) ; see also Du v. Barr , 975 F.3d 444, 447 (5th Cir. 2020)

. In Vazquez

- Guerra v. Garland , 7 F.4th 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2021 ) , petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 27, 2021) (No. 21

- 632), we rejected the next argu ment urged by Aldana

- Ramirez

— namely, that the BIA erred in failing to fully analyze her withholding of removal clai m. Although Aldana

- Ramirez argues that a claim for withholding of removal has a lower nexus standard than asylum and therefore cannot be dis missed by virtue of a failed asylum claim,

we have held that “applicants for withholding of removal must similarly [to an asylum applicant] show that a protected ground

. . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. ” See i d. (cleaned up). Regarding her CAT claim , Aldana

- Ramirez has failed to produce evidence that would compel a different conclusion that the Honduran government would acquiesce in her torture

. See Hakim v. Holder , 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010)

. Although the record includes evidence of the plight of women in H onduras at the hands of domestic abusers and the low efficacy of the Honduran government’s response , there is record support for the IJ’s finding that the Honduran government is at least making attempts to assist women subjected to domestic violence

. Cf. Aviles

- Tavera v. Garland , 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir. 2022) ( noting that “a foreign government’s failure to apprehend the persons threatening the alien or the lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or risk of torture do not constitute sufficie nt state action” ( cleaned up )). Finally, t his court lacks jurisdiction to review Aldana

- Ramirez’s argument that the BIA violated Matter of A

- C

- A

- A

- , 28 I. & N. Dec. 84 ( Att’y Gen. 2020 ) , vacated by Matter of A

- C

- A

- A

- , 28 I. & N. Dec. 351 ( Att’y Gen. 2021) , because she did not exhaust her administrative remedies by raising it first before the BIA in a motion to reconsider. See Avelar

- Oliva v. Barr , 954 Case: 20-60871 Document: 00516203972 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2022No. 20

- 60871

4 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020) ; see also Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland , 9 F.4th 278, 284

– 86 (5t h Cir. 2021) ( observing that a motion to reconsider is the proper vehicle for raising a change in law with the BIA). Accordingly, Aldana

- Ramirez’s petition f or review is DISMISSED IN PART and otherwise DENIED

. Case: 20-60871 Document: 00516203972 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/15/2022