Court Opinion

ID: 9590967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:00:36.132055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:48.735336
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60604        Document: 00516866362             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/21/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60604                               August 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Patricia Elizabeth Argueta-Chavez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A205 343 040
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Patricia Elizabeth Argueta-Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her
   application for asylum and withholding of removal.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60604     Document: 00516866362           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                    No. 22-60604

          In reviewing the BIA’s decision, we consider the IJ’s ruling only to the
   extent it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
   Cir. 2018). For the two issues at hand, the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning
   without separate analysis, rendering the IJ’s opinion the final agency
   decision; therefore, we review the IJ’s decision. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
   F.3d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 2005). Factual determinations that an alien is
   ineligible for asylum and withholding are reviewed for substantial evidence.
   Id. at 344; see also Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401–02 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Under that standard, the IJ’s decision must stand unless the evidence
   compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang, 432 F.3d at 343–44.
          One seeking asylum must show that officials are unable or unwilling
   to protect her from persecution on account of a protected ground, such as
   membership in a particular social group (PSG). Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d
   284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019). Under the BIA’s framework, a PSG “must: (1)
   consist of persons who share a common immutable characteristic; (2) be
   defined with particularity; and (3) be socially visible or distinct within the
   society in question”. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir.
   2019); see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521–22 (5th Cir.
   2012) (reviewing determinations on these criteria for substantial evidence).
          The IJ determined, and the BIA agreed, that Argueta’s proposed PSG
   of “Salvadoran women who have helped authorities in the prosecution of
   crimes” was not cognizable. Specifically, it found: being an informant is not
   an immutable characteristic; the proposed PSG did not “clearly define the
   outside parameters” and therefore lacked particularity; and Argueta failed to
   offer evidence that the proposed PSG was perceived as a distinct group in El
   Salvador.
          Argueta has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary result.
   Her proposed PSG lacks particularity because it is “exceedingly broad and

                                         2
Case: 22-60604      Document: 00516866362           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-60604

   encompasses a diverse cross section of society”. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d
   at 521. Additionally, as the IJ recognized, she presented no evidence that her
   “proposed group of former informants has ‘social distinction’ or would be
   perceived as a particular group”. Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d
   784, 787 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Accordingly, she cannot show the IJ’s findings are unsupported by
   substantial evidence; therefore, her asylum claim fails. See id. at 786–87
   (rejecting similar proposed PSG of victims of criminal activity who had
   reported the activity to police). And, her failure to show eligibility for asylum
   precludes eligibility for withholding of removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899,
   906 (5th Cir. 2002).
          DENIED.

                                          3