Melgar-Ortiz v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60451 Document: 00516680353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 17, 2023
No. 22-60451 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Maria Elizabeth Melgar-Ortiz; Esmeralda Del Carmen
Gutierrez-Melgar; Noel Antonio Gutierrez-Melgar,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 436 967
Agency No. A209 436 968
Agency No. A209 436 969
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Maria Elizabeth Melgar-Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, or
“BIA.” The decision dismissed her appeal from an order of an Immigration
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60451 Document: 00516680353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-60451
Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Because we
review the BIA’s decision concerning asylum, withholding, and CAT relief
for substantial evidence, we may not disturb this decision unless the evidence
“compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th
Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original).
This standard has not been met. Melgar-Ortiz shows no error in
connection with the BIA’s determination that her proposed particular social
groups were not cognizable. A particular social group must be socially
distinct. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). In
addition, a particular social group must be more than one person. Martinez
Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019). She thus fails to show
that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the
issue whether she was eligible for asylum or withholding. Because an
applicant for asylum or withholding of removal must first show membership
in a relevant social group, Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021),
we need not consider her remaining arguments concerning these forms of
relief.
Her CAT arguments fail because they do not show that the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she
more likely than not will be tortured if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions,
860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for review is DENIED.
_____________________
1
Melgar-Ortiz is the mother of the other two petitioners here, who are derivatives
on her application.
2