Glenda Cruz-De Hernandez v. William Barr, U ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60429 Document: 00515660320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 3, 2020
No. 19-60429 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Glenda Jamileth Cruz-De Hernandez; Anthony Bladimir
Hernandez-Cruz,
Petitioners,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A209 842 594 & A209 842 595
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Glenda Jamileth Cruz-De Hernandez, on behalf of herself and her
minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60429 Document: 00515660320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
No. 19-60429
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her
application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Cruz contends: she suffered past persecution due to her membership
in the particular social group, “single El Salvadoran working mothers unable
to protect her family from persecution by the Mara gangs”; the BIA failed to
conduct fact-finding on her membership in the two additional social groups
of “victims of domestic abuse unable to leave their relationship” and
“known immediate family members of Glenda Jamileth Cruz de
Hernandez”; the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to
protect her from persecution; there is a clear probability of persecution upon
her return; and the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred by finding she was not a
credible witness. Because Cruz’ contentions fail regardless of her credibility,
this final issue is not addressed.
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent
it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual
findings, for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, “petitioner
has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. at 518 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate either past
persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on one of five
enumerated grounds, including, as relevant here, membership in a particular
social group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 1158(b)(1).
Cruz testified that gang members in El Salvador attempted to recruit
her son by bullying him and, on one occasion, pushing him down some stairs.
Notwithstanding this incident, Cruz did not provide evidence of threats
directed at her or other, more serious threats. She has not, therefore, shown
2
Case: 19-60429 Document: 00515660320 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2020
No. 19-60429
the BIA’s dismissal lacked substantial evidence. See, e.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft,
379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that taunting from fellow students
constituted “mere denigration, harassment, and threats” and did not amount
to past persecution).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cruz’ membership in the two newly
defined groups (“victims of domestic abuse unable to leave their
relationship”; “known immediate family members of Glenda Jamileth Cruz
de Hernandez”) because Cruz did not present either of these groups to the
IJ or BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th
Cir. 2004) (“Failure to exhaust an issue creates a jurisdictional bar as to that
issue.”) (citation omitted).
For the first of her final three claims, Cruz’ brief does not maintain
she has a well-founded fear of future persecution outside of a single sentence.
Accordingly, she has abandoned this claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Her failure to establish either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution renders her contention concerning
the El Salvadorian government irrelevant. And, her failure to establish
eligibility for asylum necessarily defeats her claim for withholding of removal.
See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
3