United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60356

Gladis Marlene Fuentes-De Chica, also known as 

Gladis Marlene Fuentes-Salmeron; Mayreli Michelle 

Fuentes, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A089 286 637 & A208 894 375

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gladis Marlene Fuentes-De Chica (“Gladis”) and Mayreli Michelle 

Fuentes (“Mayreli”) petition this court for review of orders by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeals from the denial by 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

March 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

2

the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Gladis’s application for withholding of 

removal and Mayreli’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

For the following reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Facts & Procedural Background

Gladis is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United 

States without inspection on February 5, 2008. The Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued an expedited removal order and 

removed Gladis to El Salvador on March 6, 2008. She illegally reentered the 

United States on February 27, 2016, and on February 28, 2016, the DHS 

reinstated its original removal order. Gladis did not contest the determination 

and filed an application for withholding of removal based upon a fear of 

persecution if she returned to El Salvador.1 Gladis brought her minor 

daughter, Mayreli, to the United States. The DHS served Mayreli with a 

Notice to Appear (“NTA”) and initiated removal proceedings charging her 

as being removable for not possessing valid immigration documents at the 

time of her entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). On behalf of 

Mayreli, Gladis admitted the factual allegations set forth in the NTA and 

subsequently filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal 

based upon fear of persecution. 

At the removal hearing, Gladis testified that she left El Salvador due 

to an abusive relationship with her husband, Jose Arnaldo Chica (“Chica”), 

and that she feared returning there because he could harm her again. She 

explained that she was 14 years old, and he was 50 years old, when their 

relationship began and that the abuse started when she moved in with him 

1 Gladis was ineligible to apply for asylum relief due to the reinstatement of her 

prior order of removal. See Matter of W-C-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 118, 123 (B.I.A. 2007).

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

3

three years later. Gladis gave birth to two of her four children in 2002 and 

2006 and the two married in 2009. Gladis testified that the abuse continued 

but that she did not report it to authorities.

Gladis left Chica in 2012 after he allegedly beat her with a gun and 

brandished a machete. Chica then located Gladis at her mother’s house and 

she returned home with him because he threatened to take away their children. Later that year, Gladis again left Chica while he was away on a trip. 

Although Chica demanded that she return, Gladis refused and moved to a 

different town. In 2013, Gladis gave birth to Mayreli during a relationship 

with another man but she did not file for a divorce from Chica because the 

process was expensive. 

After their separation, Gladis filed a police report alleging that Chica 

had raped his other daughter, whom he had from a relationship with a different woman. The police arrested him, and he appeared at two court hearings 

but fled prior to his sentencing. Gladis testified that she fears returning to El 

Salvador because Chica could locate her, and the police would be unable to 

protect her in light of the other ongoing violence in the country. During crossexamination, Gladis testified that Chica telephoned her two to three times a 

month but did not physically abuse her between the time of their separation 

in 2012 and her departure from El Salvador in 2016. She also conceded that 

he never physically harmed Mayreli. 

In her oral decision, the IJ denied Gladis’s application for withholding 

of removal and Mayreli’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

The IJ explained that Gladis was generally a credible witness but had not met 

her burden of demonstrating past persecution or a clear probability of future 

persecution on account of a protected ground. The IJ also determined that 

Mayreli had not demonstrated that she suffered any harm in El Salvador or a 

threat of future harm. 

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

4

The IJ acknowledged that Gladis’s proposed particular social group, 

“Salvadoran married women unable to leave their relationship,” was cognizable pursuant to Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (B.I.A. 2014)

(“A-R-C-G”), but that she did not qualify for withholding of removal because, unlike the applicant in that case, Gladisleft her relationship on numerous occasions. The IJ also noted that Gladis left Chica in 2012 and that she 

entered into a relationship with another man after that separation without 

significant repercussions outside of harassing telephone calls. The IJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Gladis suffered past persecution and that she had not demonstrated that Salvadoran authorities would be 

unable and unwilling to provide protection given that she did not file a police 

report against Chica during their marriage or subsequent separation. 

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Gladis’s application for withholding of removal and dismissed her appeal. It ruled that based upon the Attorney General’s opinion in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“AB-”), which overruled A-R-C-G-, Gladis’s proposed particular social group 

was not cognizable. It explained that the proposed social group was circularly 

defined and lacked social distinction and particularity. The BIA also pointed 

out that Gladis failed to address the impact of A-B- on her case despite the 

opinion having been issued nearly one year prior to the submission of her appellate brief. Alternatively, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, even if her proposed particular social group was cognizable, Gladis had not established 

membership in the group given her ability to leave the relationship and move 

to another town where she lived safely for four years without a physical encounter with Chica. The BIA emphasized that this departure resulted in a 

“fundamental change in circumstances” such that Gladis could not establish 

a future threat of harm. 

In a separate opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Mayreli’s 

application for asylum and withholding of removal and dismissed her appeal. 

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

5

The BIA explained that she did not suffer harm rising to the level of past persecution and held that the evidence did not establish a well-founded or clear 

probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Gladis

and Mayreli jointly filed a timely petition for review. 

II. Standard of Review

We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision 

only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 

(5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 

2009).

III. Discussion

To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must show that her 

“life or freedom would be threatened in [her home country] because of [inter 

alia] . . . membership in a particular social group.” Martinez Manzanares v. 

Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Although the phrase “particular social group” has long been described as “ambiguous and difficult to define,” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & 

N. Dec. 227, 230 (B.I.A. 2014) (“M-E-V-G-”), a particular social group must 

be made up of members who share a common immutable characteristic, be 

defined with particularity, and be distinct from other persons within society. 

See id. at 230-33; Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936 F.3d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Although Petitioners raise eighteen assignments of error challenging 

the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of their applications for asylum 

and withholding of removal, they have failed to brief most of those arguments 

and have therefore abandoned them on appeal. See Nastase v. Barr, 964 F.3d 

313, 318 n.2 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 877 (2020). Moreover, 

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

6

Petitioners’ arguments related to the BIA’s application of A-B- are 

unexhausted because they did not challenge the BIA’s application of that case 

in a motion to reopen or for reconsideration.2 We therefore lack jurisdiction 

to review these arguments. See Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 868 (5th 

Cir. 2018).

The Government urges that any attempt by Gladis “to argue that her 

particular social group meets the necessary requirements” for withholding of 

removal is not properly before this court because she did not exhaust this 

argument before the BIA. However, because the record indicates that she 

does appear to (somewhat inartfully) raise this claim in her BIA brief, we 

address it here and conclude that it is without merit. We held in GonzalesVeliz v. Barr that, to be cognizable, a proposed “particular social group must 

exist independently of the harm asserted.” 938 F.3d 219, 230 (5th Cir. 2019)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA, relying on our 

decision in that case determined that the proposed particular social group of 

“Salvadoran married women unable to leave their relationship” was not 

cognizable because it was defined by the harm asserted and lacked 

particularity and social distinction. Very recently, we held that “GonzalesVeliz remains the law of this circuit” and that holding remains undisturbed.

Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 403 (5th Cir. 2021). For these reasons, we 

conclude that the BIA did not err in its analysis of this issue. See GonzalesVeliz, 938 F.3d at 232; M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 236 n.11. 

Because Gladis has not established membership in a cognizable 

particular social group, she cannot satisfy the requirements for withholding 

of removal and this court need not address her remaining arguments. See 

2 Petitioners had the opportunity to raise these claims because A-B- was issued 

approximately one year prior to the submission of their BIA brief.

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-60356

7

Martinez Manzanares, 925 F.3d at 226. Likewise, Petitioners fail to brief the 

several assignments of error they raise challenging the BIA’s decision 

affirming the IJ’s denial of Mayreli’s application for asylum and withholding 

of removal. They therefore have abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s 

decision on those issues. See Nastase, 964 F.3d at 318 n.2.

IV. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part 

and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 20-60356 Document: 00516239680 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2022