Guzman Rodriguez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60907 Document: 00515917267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 28, 2021
No. 20-60907 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Karen Patricia Guzman Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 945 918
Before Haynes, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Karen Patricia Guzman Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and
withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60907 Document: 00515917267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2021
No. 20-60907
She does not challenge the denial of her claim for relief based upon political
opinion or her claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture
and therefore has abandoned those claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
This court reviews the final decision of the BIA and will only consider
the decision of the Immigration Judge where it influenced the decision of the
BIA. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Questions of
law are reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. See
id. at 594; Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the
substantial evidence standard, this court may not reverse an immigration
court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
Whether an applicant is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is a
factual finding. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted).
To be eligible for asylum, Guzman Rodriguez must show that she is
unable or unwilling to return to her home country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of,” as relevant here,
“membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A cognizable particular social group 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. See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA
2014).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Guzman
Rodriguez’s proposed particular social group—“business women from
Honduras”—is not cognizable because it lacks the required immutability,
social visibility, or particularity. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
2
Case: 20-60907 Document: 00515917267 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2021
No. 20-60907
518-19 (5th Cir. 2012). Guzman Rodriguez has not shown that her proposed
group is more than a “catch all” of persons fearing persecution. See id.Because she has failed to demonstrate her entitlement to asylum, Guzman
Rodriguez has also failed to demonstrate her entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
DENIED.
3