United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60544

Summary Calendar

Sandra Yanira Aragon-Rivera, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 640 021

Before Davis, Higginson, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sandra Yanira Aragon-Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

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

dismissing her appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) 

concluding that she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 9, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60544 Document: 00516350232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60544

2

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She challenges the 

BIA’s conclusions that she has not shown eligibility for asylum and 

withholding because she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded 

fear of future persecution. She also challenges the BIA’s conclusion that she 

has not shown eligibility for CAT relief. These arguments are reviewed 

under the substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 

344 (5th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the decision of the BIA and 

consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. 

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

As a preliminary matter, we note that the BIA found that AragonRivera had waived on appeal any challenge to the IJ’s findings that her 

proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that she failed 

to demonstrate a fear of future persecution because she could relocate within 

El Salvador to avoid any harm. Because she does not challenge these findings 

by the BIA in her petition, any such challenge is abandoned. See Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider her unexhausted arguments that her proposed PSG was cognizable 

and that the Government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that 

relocation was reasonable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Martinez-Guevara v. 

Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 

320-21 (5th Cir. 2009).

Aragon-Rivera has not shown that substantial evidence compels a 

conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she showed past 

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See INS v. Elias–

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Consequently, 

she has not shown that substantial evidence compels a conclusion contrary to 

that of the BIA on the issue whether she showed eligibility for withholding. 

See Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 270-71 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. 

denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 

Case: 21-60544 Document: 00516350232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60544

3

2002). Additionally, Aragon-Rivera fails to show that the record compels a 

conclusion contrary to the BIA’s that she failed to establish that it was more 

likely than not that she would be tortured were she repatriated to El Salvador

by or with the acquiescence of a government official. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 

344. 

The petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED 

IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 21-60544 Document: 00516350232 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2022