Court Opinion

ID: 9951781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 00:02:13.914114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:32.504978
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60579            Document: 41-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                    ___________                                 FILED
                                                                          March 18, 2024
                                     No. 23-60579                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ___________                                 Clerk

Elda Celina Castillo-Bonilla; Edvar Castillo-Bonilla,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                    Petition for Review from an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A208 997 920
                           Agency No. A208 997 919
                   ______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Elda Celina Castillo-Bonilla and her son, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of
their application for relief.1 The government has moved summarily to deny

       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
       1
         Castillo’s son was a minor at the time she filed an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
 Case: 23-60579           Document: 41-1          Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/18/2024

                                       No. 22-60277

the petition. It argues that the record supports the BIA’s determination that
Castillo is not eligible for asylum because, inter alia, Castillo failed to
establish that she faces persecution in Honduras based on her membership in
a particular social group.2 This court reviews the factual conclusion that an
alien is not eligible for asylum using the substantial evidence standard.
Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Zhao v.
Gonzalez, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)).
        “The summary affirmance procedure is generally reserved for cases
in which the parties concede that the issues are foreclosed by circuit
precedent.” United States v. Uduu, 564 F. App’x 127, 129 (5th Cir. 2014).
Castillo makes no such concession here, and the issues raised are not
immediately recognizable as foreclosed by this court’s precedents. For these
reasons, we DENY the government’s motion for summary disposition.
        Nonetheless, after considering the parties’ arguments, no further
briefing is necessary to conclude that there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the BIA’s determination that Castillo was ineligible for
asylum. Indeed, as to the only particular social group challenged on appeal,

Here, only Castillo’s application for asylum is at issue. She has waived any challenge to the
denial of relief as to withholding of removal and CAT protection, as she fails to mention
these claims in either her opening brief or her response to the Government’s motion for
summary affirmance. See Garcia v. Garland, No. 22-60552, 2023 WL 5040975, at *1 (5th
Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (holding that a failure adequately to brief issues on appeal from the BIA
constitutes a waiver) (citing Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008)).
        2
          Castillo asserted to the IJ that she was a member of 14 proposed particular social
groups, including “Relative[s] of Junior Alberto Duartes Castillo,” her nephew who was
murdered in Honduras in 2010. The IJ found these putative social groups were not
cognizable for several reasons: They lacked particularity or social distinction (or both); the
social groups were impermissibly defined by the harm; and Castillo failed to demonstrate a
nexus between any claimed group and the harm she experienced or feared. On appeal to
the BIA, Castillo raised only the proposed social group relating to her familial relationship
with Junior Alberto Duartes Castillo. The BIA thus found that Castillo waived the
remaining proposed social groups.

                                              2
Case: 23-60579         Document: 41-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/18/2024

                                 No. 22-60277

the BIA properly adopted the IJ’s finding that Castillo’s familial relationship
“was only incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate” to the primary
reason the Honduran gang members harassed her, which was extortion.
Further, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the BIA’s determination on this
point did not rest on the since-vacated decisions in A-B-I, 21 I. & N. Dec. 316
(U.S. Att’y Gen. 2018) or L-E-A-II, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (U.S. Att’y Gen.
2019). See Aguilar-Manzanares v. Garland, No. 21-60891, 2022 WL 3136980,
at *2 (rejecting a similar argument when the BIA “expressly noted in its
decision that Matter of A-B-[I] had been vacated after the IJ issued its
decision” and had “confirmed that it had not relied on the . . . vacated
decision in deciding [the] appeal”).
       Accordingly, we DISPENSE with further briefing and DENY the
petition for review.

                                        3