United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 19-60032 

Summary Calendar 

Maria Sebastiana Paiz Sorto; Darlyn Margarita 

Argueta Paiz, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A209 294 337 

Agency No. A209 294 338 

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Sebastiana Paiz Sorto and her minor daughter, Darlyn 

Margarita Argueta Paiz, petition for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’s decision affirming, without opinion, an order of the Immigration 

*

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

July 18, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 19-60032 Document: 00516397723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
No. 19-60032 

2 

Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To the extent the 

petitioners challenge the BIA’s use of the summary affirmance procedure 

provided by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we lack jurisdiction to consider the 

unexhausted claim. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-61 & 

n.9 (5th Cir. 2022). Given the BIA’s summary affirmance disposition, we 

review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 

830, 831-32 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the MS-13 

gang’s threats were motivated by a desire to increase the wealth of the 

organization by extorting family-owned business like the petitioners’ and, as 

such, their membership in the proposed family-based particular social group 

was incidental, tangential, or subordinate to those motives. See, e.g., RamirezMejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 

788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 

(5th Cir. 2002). Because the nexus issue is dispositive of the petitioners’ 

asylum and withholding of removal claims, see Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; 

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

142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022), this court need not reach their arguments related to 

persecution and whether the government of El Salvador was able and willing 

to control their persecutors. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

Regarding their CAT claim, the petitioners have failed to produce 

evidence that would compel a conclusion that the government of El Salvador 

would acquiesce in their torture. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138-

39 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 229 

(5th Cir. 2019); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and 

DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 19-60032 Document: 00516397723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022