Court Opinion

ID: 9840037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 00:00:34.302491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:14.469034
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60223        Document: 00516896085             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

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

                                      No. 23-60223                                    FILED
                                                                             September 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Jaquelin Aracely Villanueva,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 687 408
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jaquelin Aracely Villanueva, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
   petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
   removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
   Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, she claimed that she was

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60223       Document: 00516896085         Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                    No. 23-60223

   persecuted by her domestic partner on account of her membership in a
   particular social group (PSG), namely “Guatemalan wom[e]n who, because
   of social and economic positions in Guatemalan society, are disenfranchised
   to a degree that it makes it impossible for them to live independently from
   their abusive male family members and partners.”
            We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder,
   685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual determination that an
   individual is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is
   reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470
   F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, “[t]he petitioner has
   the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at
   518 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
            To be cognizable, a PSG must be (1) comprised of persons who share
   an immutable characteristic, (2) particularly defined, and (3) socially distinct
   within the society at issue. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir.
   2019).     Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
   Villanueva’s proposed PSG lacked the requisite social distinction. She has
   not shown that the evidence compels the conclusion that members of her
   proposed PSG are perceived in Guatemalan society as a discrete social group.
   See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); Hernandez-De La Cruz
   v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-87 (5th Cir. 2016). She thus cannot demonstrate
   eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson, 685
   F.3d at 522.
            To obtain protection under the CAT, the applicant must demonstrate
   that, in the proposed country of removal, it is more likely than not that she
   would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, a public official or other

                                          2
Case: 23-60223     Document: 00516896085           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                    No. 23-60223

   person acting in an official capacity. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925
   F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). “[A] government’s inability to protect its
   citizens does not amount to acquiescence.” Id. at 229 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Villanueva has not shown that the evidence
   compels the conclusion that any potential torture would entail the requisite
   state action or acquiescence. See id.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                           3