Lopez-Mejia v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60142 Document: 00516345551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 6, 2022
No. 20-60142
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Santos Rosa Lopez-Mejia,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 780 333
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Santa Rosa Lopez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60142 Document: 00516345551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 20-60142
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lopez-Mejia argues that the BIA erred
because it relied on Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 320 (A.G. 2018) (A-
B-I) and did not individually consider the cognizability of her proposed
particular social group (PSG) based on domestic violence, “Honduran
women in abusive domestic relationships who are unable to leave the
relationship.” She contends that the PSG is cognizable. She further argues
that she established a nexus between the persecution suffered and her
proposed PSG. With regard to the denial of CAT relief, Lopez-Mejia
contends that the BIA did not provide a sufficient reasoned basis for its
decision and that the evidence supported relief.
These arguments are reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Additionally, we review the decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision
only insofar as it influenced the BIA, Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018), and we review legal questions de novo, Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d
299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997). Because her claim concerning the BIA’s failure to
provide a sufficient reasoned basis for the denial of CAT relief is raised for
the first time in this court, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Martinez-
Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1).
Lopez-Mejia’s asylum claim based on membership in the proposed
PSG fails because it is not cognizable. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F. 4th 395, 405-
07 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2021). Because she has shown no error in connection with
the BIA’s rejection of her proposed particular social group, there is no need
to consider the remaining argument concerning the nexus requirement. See
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). She thus has shown no error in
connection with the BIA’s conclusion that she had not shown eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 20-60142 Document: 00516345551 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2022
No. 20-60142
As to her CAT claim, Lopez-Mejia has not shown that the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she
more likely than not would be tortured with government acquiescence if
repatriated. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344; see also Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794
F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015). The petition for review is DISMISSED in
part and DENIED in part.
3