Alvarez-Sabillon v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60088 Document: 00515860808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 20-60088
FILED
May 13, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Iris Dinora Alvarez-Sabillon; Julio Cesar Perdoma-
Alvarez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 261 233
BIA No. A206 261 234
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Iris Dinora Alvarez-Sabillon and her derivative beneficiary, Julio
Cesar Perdomo-Alvarez, are natives and citizens of Honduras. They petition
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60088 Document: 00515860808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60088
dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioners argue
that substantial evidence exists that, if removed, they will suffer persecution
on account of Alvarez-Sabillon’s membership in the particular social group
(PSG) of “Honduran women who cannot leave their domestic partners.”
This court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only consider
the IJ’s decision where it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo, giving deference
to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration statutes. Orellana-
Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). Whether an applicant
is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed for substantial
evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
To be eligible for asylum, the petitioners must show they are unable
or unwilling to return to their country “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A cognizable 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. Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). Further,
“the social group must exist independently of the fact of persecution.” Id. at
236 n.11.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the petitioners
are ineligible for asylum because Alvarez-Sabillon’s proposed PSG does not
meet these requirements. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229-34
(5th Cir. 2019); Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517-18; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
Because petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to asylum,
2
Case: 20-60088 Document: 00515860808 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60088
they have also failed to demonstrate their entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3