United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60903

Summary Calendar

Genaro Lopez Rodriguez; Yuridia Aparicio Moreno, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A208 845 668, A208 845 669

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Former spouses Genaro Lopez Rodriguez and Yuridia Aparicio 

Moreno, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision 

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60903 Document: 00516488176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-60903

2

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

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

decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the 

denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse a factual

finding unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal. Id. Conclusions of 

law are reviewed de novo. Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411. 

On review, the petitioners argue that they are entitled to protection 

under CAT. However, they failed to raise that issue in the first instance 

before the BIA. Thus, they did not exhaust their administrative remedies as 

to this issue thereby depriving us of jurisdiction to hear it. See MartinezGuevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2022).

The petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal are based on 

membership in the proposed particular social group (PSG) of “individuals 

between 25 to 40 who have been in the United States for several years and 

then returned to Mexico.” They testified that they were victims of several 

robberies before leaving Mexico and will be especially targeted once they 

return. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that the IJ properly 

found this group not cognizable because it contains people from broad swaths 

of society with different characteristics and is thus not particularized. See 

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 522 (5th Cir. 2012); Chen, 470 F.3d 

at 1134. Furthermore, we have rejected a similar PSG of persons perceived 

to have wealth upon returning to Mexico from the United States. GonzalezSoto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016).

Case: 21-60903 Document: 00516488176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-60903

3

Accordingly, Lopez Rodriguez and Aparicio Moreno’s petition is 

DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

Case: 21-60903 Document: 00516488176 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2022