Court Opinion

ID: 9352493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 19:00:25.785865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:37.522500
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60233        Document: 00516600570             Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/06/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-60233                             January 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Edith Carolina Castro-Ortega; Ashley Nahomy Paz-
   Castro,

                                                                              Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A208 700 561
                               Agency No. A208 700 562

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Edith Carolina Castro-Ortega, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   entered the United States illegally in 2015 with her daughter. She seeks
   review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
   her appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60233         Document: 00516600570              Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                          No. 22-60233

   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
   Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1
             On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
   decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
   the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
   BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, we review both decisions.
   See id.
             This court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
   and it will not reverse such findings unless the petitioner shows that “the
   evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
   against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009). Among
   the findings that this court reviews for substantial evidence are the factual
   conclusions that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
   Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
             Castro-Ortega argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in disposing of her
   claims for asylum and withholding or removal on nexus grounds when it was
   clear that she feared persecution in Honduras solely because of her family
   membership. 2 She cites this court’s decision in Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936
   F.3d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 2019), in support of her argument that the IJ and the
   BIA failed to perform the requisite fact-based analysis in evaluating her
   theory of the case (i.e., that she feared persecution by gangs in Honduras as

             1
            Because Castro-Ortega is the lead petitioner and her daughter’s claims for
   immigration relief are derivative of her claim, we will hereinafter refer only to Castro-
   Ortega unless otherwise specified.
             2
              Castro-Ortega does not challenge the BIA’s finding that she abandoned her
   request for relief under the CAT by failing to raise it in her appeal before the BIA. She has
   therefore abandoned the issue before this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833
   (5th Cir. 2003).

                                                2
Case: 22-60233       Document: 00516600570         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 22-60233

   a result of her brother Elmer, a former gang member who was serving a 30-
   year sentence in Honduras for killing an MS gang member).
            Castro-Ortega appears to confuse cognizability of her family-based
   social group with the nexus analysis. The court’s reference in Pena Oseguera
   to a “fact-based inquiry made on a case-by-case basis” was made in the
   context of a discussion of the cognizability of family-based social groups, not
   nexus. See 936 F.3d at 251.
            To the extent that Castro-Ortega is arguing that the IJ and the BIA
   erred in disposing of her case based on nexus, without analyzing the
   cognizability of her family-based PSG, this court has indicated in decisions
   post-Pena Oseguera that a cognizability determination is not an absolute
   prerequisite to addressing whether a petitioner proved a nexus between
   persecution and a family-based social group. See, e.g., Vazquez-Guerra v.
   Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 268 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022).
   In any event, the IJ explicitly found that “family can be a particular social
   group,” and the BIA implicitly affirmed this finding.
            Castro-Ortega does not raise any other arguments regarding the BIA’s
   analysis of nexus in her opening brief. In her reply brief, however, she
   attempts to raise a new argument that the BIA erred in failing to perform a
   “mixed-motive analysis” to determine whether she had satisfied the nexus
   requirement. “This court does not entertain arguments raised for the first
   time in a reply brief.” United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir.
   2009).
            The petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3