United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60604

Summary Calendar

____________

Patricia Elizabeth Argueta-Chavez, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205 343 040

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Patricia Elizabeth Argueta-Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing 

her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her 

application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60604 Document: 00516866362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023
No. 22-60604

2

In reviewing the BIA’s decision, we consider the IJ’s ruling only to the 

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

Cir. 2018). For the two issues at hand, the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning 

without separate analysis, rendering the IJ’s opinion the final agency 

decision; therefore, we review the IJ’s decision. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 

F.3d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 2005). Factual determinations that an alien is

ineligible for asylum and withholding are reviewed for substantial evidence. 

Id. at 344; see also Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401–02 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Under that standard, the IJ’s decision must stand unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang, 432 F.3d at 343–44.

One seeking asylum must show that officials are unable or unwilling 

to protect her from persecution on account of a protected ground, such as 

membership in a particular social group (PSG). Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 

284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019). Under the BIA’s framework, a PSG “must: (1) 

consist of persons who share a common immutable characteristic; (2) be 

defined with particularity; and (3) be socially visible or distinct within the 

society in question”. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 

2019); see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521–22 (5th Cir. 

2012) (reviewing determinations on these criteria for substantial evidence).

The IJ determined, and the BIA agreed, that Argueta’s proposed PSG 

of “Salvadoran women who have helped authorities in the prosecution of 

crimes” was not cognizable. Specifically, it found: being an informant is not 

an immutable characteristic; the proposed PSG did not “clearly define the 

outside parameters” and therefore lacked particularity; and Argueta failed to 

offer evidence that the proposed PSG was perceived as a distinct group in El 

Salvador.

Argueta has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary result. 

Her proposed PSG lacks particularity because it is “exceedingly broad and 

Case: 22-60604 Document: 00516866362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2023
No. 22-60604

3

encompasses a diverse cross section of society”. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d 

at 521. Additionally, as the IJ recognized, she presented no evidence that her 

“proposed group of former informants has ‘social distinction’ or would be 

perceived as a particular group”. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 

784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Accordingly, she cannot show the IJ’s findings are unsupported by 

substantial evidence; therefore, her asylum claim fails. See id. at 786–87 

(rejecting similar proposed PSG of victims of criminal activity who had 

reported the activity to police). And, her failure to show eligibility for asylum

precludes eligibility for withholding of removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 

906 (5th Cir. 2002).

DENIED.

Case: 22-60604 Document: 00516866362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/21/2023