Galo-Betancourt v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60196 Document: 00516369738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 24, 2022
No. 21-60196 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Madelin Johely Galo-Betancourt,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 165 548
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Madelin Johely Galo-Betancourt, a native and citizen of Honduras,
has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”)
decision dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60196 Document: 00516369738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2022
No. 21-60196
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We generally review only
the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influenced the
BIA’s decision. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Galo-Betancourt, who was never threatened or harmed by the
Mara-18 gang, has failed to demonstrate that substantial evidence compels a
conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA on the issue of whether she
suffered past persecution. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
2005); Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017). Also, she has
abandoned any challenge the BIA’s determination that “persons perceived
by the gangs or other organized criminal groups as contravening its rules or
resisting its authority” was not a cognizable particular social group (“PSG”)
by failing to brief the claim on appeal. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
833 (5th Cir. 2003). In any event, an antagonistic relationship with gangs is
not by itself a basis for establishing a PSG. See Hernandez-De La Cruz v.
Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786–87 (5th Cir. 2016). In addition, the record does not
support her contention that she is entitled to protection on account of
imputed anti-gang political opinion or family membership. See Vazquez-
Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269-70 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
1228 (2022). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision
affirming the IJ’s denial of her claim for asylum. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344.
Because Galo-Betancourt has not demonstrated that she is entitled to
asylum, she cannot satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of
removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Her
unexhausted CAT claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Martinez-
Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022).
The petition is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART
for lack of jurisdiction.
2