Aguirre-Solano v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60203 Document: 00516397578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 18, 2022
No. 21-60203 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Ana Mirna Aguirre-Solano; Axel Maximiliano
Alvarado-Aguirre; Osbaldo Vladamir Alvarado-Rivas;
Heysel Aylin Alvarado-Solano,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 227 567
Agency No. A209 227 568
Agency No. A208 761 619
Agency No. A208 761 620
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-60203 Document: 00516397578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
No. 21-60203
Per Curiam:*
Ana Mirna Aguirre-Solano and Osbaldo Vladamir Alvarado-Rivas,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from a decision
of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their consolidated applications for
asylum and withholding of removal. 1 Although they raise numerous
arguments in their petition for review, we have jurisdiction to consider only
their arguments that the BIA and IJ erroneously concluded that they failed to
show membership in a cognizable particular social group (PSG) and a nexus,
as these are the only exhausted claims. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27
F.4th 353, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2022); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.
2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
We review their challenge to the BIA’s PSG determination under the
substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th
Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the decision of the BIA and consider the
IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880
F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). The petitioners have not met these standards
with respect to the BIA’s rejection of their proposed PSG and thus have not
shown that substantial evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the
BIA on the issue whether they were eligible for relief. See Jaco v. Garland, 24
F.4th 395, 401, 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906
(5th Cir. 2002). Concomitantly, there is no need to consider nexus. See INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). The petition for review is DENIED
in part and DISMISSED in part.
*
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.
1
Petitioners are a wife, husband, and their minor children.
2