Court Opinion

ID: 9367720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 19:00:42.118676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.972953
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60138         Document: 00516630984            Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

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

                                       No. 22-60138                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                          February 1, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Maria Deisy Palma Palma,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A200 107 469

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Maria Deisy Palma Palma petitions for review of the decision by the
   Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. We
   review the BIA’s refusal to reopen for abuse of discretion.                    Abubaker
   Abushagif v. Garland, 15 F.4th 323, 329 (5th Cir. 2021).

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60138      Document: 00516630984           Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                     No. 22-60138

          On review, Palma Palma has not shown that the BIA abused its
   discretion in finding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT)—the underlying relief she sought in filing her
   motion to reopen. See Abubaker Abushagif, 15 F.4th at 330 (holding that in
   order “[t]o establish a prima facie case in a motion to reopen, an alien must
   show that there is a reasonable likelihood that he is statutorily eligible for the
   relief he seeks”). Regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims,
   Palma Palma’s proposed particular social groups (PSG) of “Salvadoran
   women whose partners are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status”
   and “Salvadoran women who parent U.S. citizen children” are not
   cognizable under her circumstances. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d
   682, 684 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that we do not recognize economic
   extortion as persecution and have rejected proposed PSGs based on people
   with wealth or perceived wealth because they are returning from the United
   States).   She has failed to explain how her other proposed PSG of
   “Salvadoran women” is cognizable under her circumstances and has thus
   abandoned it on review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
   2003); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring briefs to contain
   “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
   authorities and [relevant] parts of the record”).
          Palma Palma’s argument that the Salvadoran government is
   “hopelessly incapable of” preventing gang-related torture and persecution is
   insufficient to establish the state action requirement of her CAT claim. See
   Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that
   “neither the failure to apprehend the persons threatening the alien, nor the
   lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or risk of torture constitute
   sufficient state action for purposes” of CAT). Furthermore, some evidence

                                           2
Case: 22-60138      Document: 00516630984          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                    No. 22-60138

   in the record indicates that the Salvadoran government is attempting to
   combat gang violence with some success.
          Finally, as to Palma Palma’s arguments related to the BIA declining to
   exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen, we lack the jurisdiction “to
   review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority
   to reopen a case because there is no legal standard against which to judge that
   decision.” Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Accordingly, Palma Palma’s petition for review is DENIED in part
   and DISMISSED in part.

                                         3