Court Opinion

ID: 9353774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 19:01:12.905945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:36.985173
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60182        Document: 00516608329             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60182
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 12, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Heydi Roxana Matias Gomez,                                                        Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of
                         the Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. A209 416 060
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Heydi Matias Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
   review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
   her appeal and affirming the order of the immigration judge (I.J.) denying
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (“CAT”). This court reviews the BIA’s decision and
   considers the I.J.’s decision only to the extent that it influenced the BIA.
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60182        Document: 00516608329              Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                         No. 22-60182

   Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s
   factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, its legal conclusions
   de novo. Id. The substantial-evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s deci-
   sion be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Oma-
   gah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). We will not reverse the
   BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
   Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
           Matias Gomez maintains that the death threats and threats of rape,
   along with the gang’s extortion demands, amounted to past persecution. The
   BIA, however, did not address or adopt the I.J.’s finding that Matias Gomez
   failed to show harm rising to the level of persecution. Instead, the BIA denied
   asylum and withholding of removal because Matias Gomez’s proposed social
   group was not cognizable and because she had failed to establish the requisite
   nexus to a protected ground.
           Because the BIA did not rely on the I.J.’s findings on past persecution
   in denying relief, and because the BIA’s dispositive findings related to cog-
   nizability, as discussed below, are not challenged by Matias Gomez, we need
   not consider her contentions related to past persecution. See Rui Yang v.
   Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011). 1
           Before the I.J., Matias Gomez defined her proposed social group as
   “persons in professions or positions susceptible to extortion.” The BIA
   agreed with the I.J. that this proposed social group was not cognizable be-

           _____________________
           1
             Matias Gomez also challenges the BIA’s determination that she failed to show the
   requisite nexus between the harm she suffered and feared in Guatemala and a protected
   ground. Because the cognizability issue is dispositive, however, we likewise need not con-
   sider her arguments regarding nexus. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As
   a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision
   of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

                                               2
Case: 22-60182       Document: 00516608329          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                     No. 22-60182

   cause it lacked particularity and social distinction.
          In her petition for review, Matias Gomez does not address the cogniz-
   ability of the proposed social group that she advanced before the I.J. and the
   BIA. Instead, she avers that she is a member of the political social group of
   “Guatemala business owners and also that the gang members imputed an
   anti-gang political opinion to her after she resisted their extortion demands;
   she posits that the BIA erred in failing to consider whether she was perse-
   cuted based on this statutorily protected ground.
          Generally, the BIA will not consider an argument that could have
   been, but was not, raised before the I.J. Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-,
   27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190 (BIA 2018). Though Matias Gomez raised the issue
   of imputed political opinion before the BIA, she did not press it before the I.J.
   Therefore, the BIA was under no obligation to consider this new theory on
   appeal. See id.
          This court is without jurisdiction to consider the issue of imputed
   political opinion because it was not considered by the BIA and is unex-
   hausted. See Toledo–Hernandez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2008).
   Further, because Matias Gomez does not challenge the BIA’s rejection—as
   not cognizable—of her proposed social group of persons in professions or
   positions susceptible to extortion, she has abandoned the issue before this
   court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
          Finally, Matias Gomez claims that the BIA erred in denying her claim
   for CAT protection because it is more likely than not that she would be tor-
   tured by the gang members who threatened her if she were returned to Guate-
   mala. Matias Gomez did not “fairly present” any substantive challenges to
   the I.J.’s denial of CAT relief before the BIA. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d
   314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, she has failed to exhaust her administra-
   tive remedies, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider her arguments

                                           3
Case: 22-60182      Document: 00516608329          Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60182

   regarding the denial of such relief. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th
   Cir. 2004).
           The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in
   part.

                                          4