Palma Palma v. Garland ( 2023 )

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