Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60278 Su m m ar y Cal endar
N IX S AID A L IAS O R T O -D E P O R T IL L O , P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t

O n P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B e fo r e D AV IS , S M IT H , a n d D E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * N i xs a I da l i a So r t o - D e Po r t i l l o ( “ Pet i t i o ne r” ) pe t i t i o ns f o rre vi e w o f

t he Boar d o f

I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s ’( “ BI A” ) de ni al o f he r ap pl i c at i o n f o rw i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l
. Yet , w he n, a s i n t hi s c as e , t he B I A “ af f i r m [ e d] w i t ho uto pi ni o n” t he
r e as o ni ng o f

t he I m m i gr at i o n J udg e ( “ I J” ) , “ t he de c i s i o n o f t he [ I J] , andno tt he B oa rd ’ s su m m a ryaff i rm a n ce, [i s] th e p rop er su b j ec tof j ud i ci a lrev i ew . ” Soa dj e de
v . A sh cr oft , 324 F. 3d 830, 832 ( 5t h C i r . 2003)
. W e co ncl ude thatthe I J’ s deni al
o f Pe t i t i o ne r ’ s a ppl i c at i o n was c o r r e c ta nd t he r e f o r e de ny t he pe t i t i o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60278

P etitioner also implie s that her anti-gang valu es could constitutea “political opinion” 1 qu al if yi ngh er for withhol ding of removal. However , as she fail s to cite even oneauthority supp ortin g thisargu me nt, th e argu me nt iswaived
. See F ED . R. APP . P. 28(a)(9)(A) (Appellant’s brief must cont ainhis o rh er“co ntention s an d the re ason s for them, with citation s to the authoritie s an d part s of the recordo nwhichth e app ellant relies .. .. ”)
. 2 “T o b e eli gible f

or w i th h oldin g o f rem ov a l , a n ap p l i ca n t m u st de m on strate a ‘ cl ea r p rob a b i l i ty’of p erse cu ti on u p on retu rn . ” R oy v. A sh cr oft , 389 F. 3d 132, 138 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng F a d d o u l v . I

NS , 3 7 F .3d 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). “Ac lea r p ro b a b il itym e a n s th a t it is m o re li k e ly th a n n o t th a t th e a p p li ca n t’ s lif e or f reedom w ou l d be threatened by persecuti on on accoun tof ei t h er hi s [ or her]
r ac e, r el i gi on, n at i onal i t y, m em ber shi p i n a par t i c ul ars oc i algr oup, orpol i t i c al op i n i on . ” Id
. Pet i t i o ne ra r gue d b e l o w , a s w e l l as o n a ppe al , t hathe r“ ant i

- ga ng values” an d “her ref u salt o abi de” by t h e rul es s etf ort h b y lo ca lgan gs, par t i c ul ar l y t hei rdem ands f orm oney, l ed t o he rper se c ut i on and qual i f y heras a m em ber of a pa rt i cul ar soci al group , t h e com m u n i t y aga i n stgan gs. H ow ever, 1 t he I J st at ed i n an or al or dert hatPet i t i oner ’ s per so nalpol i t i c alvi ew s orr ef usal to p a yb rib e s to loca l ga n g s w e r e i n s u fficien t to q u a li fyh e r a s a m e m b e r o f a p r o te c te d s o c ia l g r o u p a s e a c h w a s n o t a n “ im m u ta b le c h a r a c te r is tic ,” w h ic h is
ne c e s s ar y t o f

o r m t he b as i s o f

a s o c i alg r o up. I n gener al , “ [ i] n a pet i t i on f orr evi ew . . . det er m i nat i ons as t o pur el y l egal q u estion s ar e rev i ew ed de n ov o.” A n d rad e v. G on zal es , 4 5 9 F
. 3 d 53 8 , 54 2 ( 5 th C i r. 200 6)
. F i n di n gs of factm u stbe up h el d “‘u n l ess an y reasona bl e adj u di cat or w ou l d be co m p ell ed to con cl u d e to th e con trary
. ’” K an e v. Hol d er , 581 F. 3d 231, 237 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(b) ( 4) ( B ) )
. Th er e i s so m e q ues t i on as to w h e th e rth e a g e n c y ’ s co n s tr u c tio n o f w h a t c o n s tit u te s a “s o c ia l g r o u p ” is
en t i t l ed to defer en ce— ei t h er Chev r o n or Ski dm ore , s e eChev r on U
. S. A
. , I nc. v. Natural R es. D ef

. Cou n ci l, I

n c. , 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ); S ki d m ore v. S w if t& Co. , 3 2 3 U .S
. 1 3 4 (1 9 4 4 )— a n d e v e n if it is a d e te r m in a tio n o f la w o rfa c t. S ee R am osL opez v. Hol d er , 5 6 3 F
. 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 5 8 -6 0 (9 t h C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( s t a t in gth a t“t h e B I A ’sN o. 09- 60278

3 determ i n ati on , i n a pu bl i shed di sposi t i on ” of w h at i s a soc i algroup “ i s enti t l ed to Chev r o n defer en ce, ” bu tnot add ress i n g t h e deference given t o un pu bl i shed d is p o s itio n s ); A rg u e t a - Ro d r ig u e zv . I NS , N o. 95-2367, 199 7 W L 693 0 64, at *5 (4th C i r. O c t. 2 9 , 19 9 7 ) (un p u b l i sh ed ) (E rv i n , J, con cu rringi n j u d gm en t) (re v iew i n g t h e deba t e as t o w h et h er t h i s det erm i n ati on i s one of l aw or fac t). Th i s i s an ope n i ss ue i n t hi s C i r c ui t
. N onet hel es s, be c ause w e c onc l ude t hat Pet i t i o ne r ’ s a r g um e nt fa i l s un d e r t he m o s t l ib e r a l s t a nd a r d o f r e v i e w, de nov o r e v ie w , w e n e e d n o t r e a c h th a t is s u e h e r e . W e f i n d n o basi s on w h i ch to reverse t h e I J’ s det erm i n ati on t h at Peti t i on er fai l ed to estab l i sh tha t sh e w a s a m em b er of a p a rti cu l a r social gro u p s o a s to qu al i f y f or w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval. “ T o est abli sh t h at h e [ or s h e] i s a m em ber of a ‘ pa rt i cul ar soc i algroup , ’an app l i can tm u stshow th a the [ or s h e] w as a m em ber of

a g roup of person s that share a com m on i m m u t able cha ract eri st i c .

. . . ” Mw em bi e v. G on zal es , 443 F
. 3d 405 , 414
- 15 (5t h C i r. 200 6)
. N u m erous ot h er c as e s , l i ke t he I J’ s o pi ni o n i n t hi s c as e , ha ve he l d t hato ne ’ s pe r s o nala nt i

- ga ng values oran t ag o n istic rel ati on shi p w i t h gan gs does not am ou n tt o a com m on im m u ta b le ch a r a c te r is tic e s ta b lis h in ga p a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p . S ee , e . g. , CuaTu m ax v. Hol d er , N o. 08- 61083, 2009 W L 2957 332, at *3 ( 5t h C i r . Sept
. 15, 2009) (un p u b lis h e d ) ( “W e, l i k e th e B IAan d IJ, h old th a t C u a -T u m a x h a s fa i l ed to est abli sh that he i s a m em ber of a n y p a rt i cul ar soc i algroup . T h e cat egori es of you t h an d ga n g recr u i t m en tare overl y broad an d of fer no m ean i n gf

u lbasi s f

or d is tin g u is h in g C u a -T u m a x fr o m o th e rp e r s o n s .”); V i l lan u eva-A m ayav. Hol d er , N o . 0 8- 60 79 4, 2 00 9 W L 29 00 26 6, a t* 2 ( 5t h Ci r. S ept
. 1 0, 2 00 9) (unpub l i s he d) ( “ Th e pe t i ti oner s fai l ed t o pr es entc om pel l i ng evi denc e t hatyo ung H onduran
m al es ex pos ed t o gang vi ol enc e are partof [ a] part i c ul arsoc i algro up, w ho have
com m on i m m u t able cha ract eri st i cs. ” )
. W e f i n d no basi s on w h i ch to di st i n gu i sh th e s e ca s e s , w h e r e p e tit io n e r s s h a r e d s im ila re x p e r i e n c e s w ith a n id e n tifia b le gr o up a nd s t i l lw e r e no t f o und t o b e m e m be r s o f a s o c i alg r o up, f

r o m t he i ns t antN o. 09- 60278

4 case, w h ere P et i t i on er fai l s to arti cul ate how one w ou l d i den t i f y t h e m em bers of he ra l l e ge d s o c i alg r o up a nd d o e s no t su ggest t hato t he r s pa r t i c i pa t e d i n l i ke
a c t iv it ie s o rs h a r e d in h e re x p e r i e n c e s . T h e r e fo r e , w e u p h o ld th e I J ’s de t e r m i nat i o n. B eca u se w e u p h old th e IJ ’ s d eterm i n a ti on tha t P eti ti on e r fa i l ed to d e mo n s t r a t e t ha t s h e h a d t h e r e q u i s i t e s t a t u s f o rwi t h h o l d i n go f

r e mo v a l , we n e e d n o t r e a c h h e ro th e ra r g u m e n ts
. F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e p e t i t i o n i s DE NI ED
.