Quintero v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60649 Document: 00516374031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 28, 2022
No. 20-60649
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Yessica Odette Quintero, also known as Yessica Odette Dubon-
Aleman,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A200 817 356
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Yessica Odette Quintero petitions for review of a decision by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial
of 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60649 Document: 00516374031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
No. 20-60649
Convention Against Torture (CAT). She does not present a reviewable
challenge to the BIA’s determination that she failed to articulate a cognizable
particular social group (PSG) as required to prevail on her claims for asylum
and withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518
(5th Cir. 2012). We do not consider her arguments that the BIA failed to
conduct an individualized, case-by-case analysis of the PSGs in light of the
facts of her case and to provide a sufficient explanation, as she did not exhaust
the issues before the BIA. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F. 4th 353,
359-61 (5th Cir. 2022); Ibrahim v. Garland, 19 F.4th 819, 826 (5th Cir. 2021).
While Quintero critiques the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of
A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 334-35 (A.G. 2018) (A-B- I), vacated by Matter of A-
B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307, 309 (A.G. 2021), she does not allege any error by the
BIA in relying on that decision. Because she does not brief the issue, she
abandons any challenge to the BIA’s decision based on its application of A-B-
I. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Quintero
likewise abandons any challenge to the BIA’s conclusions that she failed to
delineate the PSG of “women in domestic relationships in Honduras” and
that her PSG of “women who believe in equality in intimate relationships”
lacked social distinction, as she fails to brief those issues in her initial brief to
this court. See id.; Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 226 n.2 (5th Cir. 2018).
With respect to the BIA’s conclusion that Quintero failed to show that
a public official would consent or acquiesce to her torture under the CAT,
she acknowledges that police made multiple attempts to find her abuser, she
was granted an injunction against him, and she received support from the
Municipal Women’s Office in Honduras. However, she contends that the
police failed to investigate or try to stop the domestic violence against her.
She cites two police reports, her testimony that a cousin filed a police report
on her behalf, and her testimony that nothing is done about police reports in
Honduras “unless someone is dead.” Quintero also asserts that the
2
Case: 20-60649 Document: 00516374031 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
No. 20-60649
Honduran government broadly fails to act diligently to intervene and stop
domestic violence crimes, citing a human rights report that states that
“[v]iolence against women and impunity for perpetrators continued to be a
serious problem” in the country. The same report also describes efforts by
the Honduran government to assist victims of domestic abuse.
We review the BIA’s adverse conclusion on acquiescence for
substantial evidence. Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496, 502, 504
(5th Cir. 2021). Given the efforts by police to enforce the domestic violence
laws against Quintero’s abuser and the assistance she and other victims of
domestic violence have received from the government of Honduras, the
failure by police to apprehend her abuser and the government’s inability to
protect victims of domestic violence does not compel a conclusion that a
public official will acquiesce in her torture. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr,
925 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir. 2019); Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343,
351 (5th Cir. 2006); Tabora Gutierrez, 12 F.4th at 504-05.
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part.
3