Alvarado De Alvarado v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-61196 Document: 00516359414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 16, 2022
No. 20-61196
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ana Verenise Alvarado De Alvarado,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A202 028 464
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ana Verenise Alvarado De Alvarado petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from a
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that she was ineligible for
asylum and withholding of removal. We review challenges to the BIA’s
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61196 Document: 00516359414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2022
No. 20-61196
determination that Alvarado De Alvarado was ineligible for relief 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).
Before this court, Alvarado De Alvarado contends that the IJ and BIA
erred in concluding that her particular social group, defined as “unmarried
Salvadoran women who live in rural areas controlled by organized criminal
organizations,” was not cognizable. She has not shown that the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and thus has not met the
substantial evidence standard with respect to this issue. See Jaco v. Garland,
24 F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
521-22 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. As a result, Alvarado
De Alvarado has shown no error in the BIA’s conclusion that she was
ineligible for relief, and there is no need for us to consider her remaining
arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Orellana-
Monson, 685 F.3d at 521-22; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2