Court Opinion

ID: 9955106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:00:51.400814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.133725
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60341            Document: 44-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                           March 27, 2024
                                    No. 23-60341
                                  Summary Calendar                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                   Clerk

Maria Guadalupe Leiva; Keiri Nayeli Paiz-Leiva; Melisa
Naome Paiz-Leiva; Nehemias Paiz-Villalobos; Hellen
Paiz-Leiva,

                                                                              Petitioners,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                    Agency Nos. A208 762 650, A208 762 651,
                   A208 762 652, A208 762 659, A208 762 660
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Maria Guadalupe Leiva, her husband, and three minor children are
natives and citizens of El Salvador. She petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision which, inter alia:                     affirmed the

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60341        Document: 44-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-60341

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding
of removal; and denied her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. She
also contends, for the first time, that the IJ violated her due-process rights by
failing to reformulate her proposed particular social groups (PSG). (Leiva’s
family members are derivatives on her application for relief.)
       Leiva fails to brief, and has therefore abandoned, any challenge to the
BIA’s: denial of her claim under the Convention Against Torture; and
rejection of her jurisdictional assertion. See, e.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (treating unbriefed issues as abandoned).
       Our court reviews the BIA’s decision, considering the IJ’s decision
only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 2018). Findings of fact, including the applicant’s ineligibility
for asylum and withholding of removal, are reviewed under the substantial-
evidence standard. E.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.
2006). Under this standard, our court “will accept the BIA’s factual findings
unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail
to find otherwise”. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019)
(citation omitted).
       To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, inter alia, that
“race, religion, nationality, membership in a [PSG], or political opinion was
or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); accord Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th
Cir. 2012). Withholding of removal requires showing the applicant would
more likely than not be persecuted on account of one of those protected
grounds. E.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 (5th Cir. 2021).
       Before the IJ and BIA, Leiva, the lead petitioner, asserted her husband
was a member of the following proposed PSGs: former Salvadoran police
officers and witnesses to criminal activity of the MS-13 gang. She sought

                                       2
Case: 23-60341       Document: 44-1          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-60341

asylum and withholding of removal based on her relationship to her husband.
The IJ and BIA found Leiva was not a member of her proposed PSGs and her
husband’s membership could not be imputed to her. Leiva’s counseled brief
does not address those findings, which are dispositive of her claims for
asylum and withholding of removal. See, e.g., Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35
F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (concluding unbriefed contentions are
forfeited); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring persecution on
protected ground).
       Her belated (and arguably unexhausted) due-process contention is
meritless because neither the IJ nor the BIA had an obligation to reformulate
her proposed PSGs. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 151–52 (5th
Cir. 2019) (upholding BIA rule requiring applicants give exact delineation of
proposed PSG); see also Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir.
2020) (“[T]he IJ does not have a duty to act as an advocate for the alien”.).
       Review of Leiva’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is de novo.
See, e.g., Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014). The
BIA denied the claim because Leiva failed to comply with the procedural
requirements outlined in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
1988). Strict compliance with those requirements is mandatory. See, e.g.,
Hernandez-Ortez, 741 F.3d at 647–48. Leiva does not contest the BIA’s
conclusion that she failed to comply with Lozada’s requirements and
therefore waives the dispositive issue. See, e.g., Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833
(treating unbriefed issues as waived).
       DENIED.

                                         3