Diana Rodriguez Varela v. William Barr, U. S. Atty ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60385 Document: 00515665509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2020
No. 19-60385 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Diana Marisol Rodriguez Varela,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 693 641
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Diana Marisol Rodriguez Varela, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60385 Document: 00515665509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
No. 19-60385
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We review the decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision only
to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th
Cir. 2009). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are
reviewed for substantial evidence. Id.Varela challenges the BIA’s denial of her request for asylum and
withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social
group of females unable to escape violent domestic relationships. To
establish membership in a particular social group, a petitioner must
demonstrate that she is a member “of a group of persons that share a
common immutable characteristic that they either cannot change or should
not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual
identities or consciences.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We find no error
in the BIA’s conclusion that Varela’s proposed particular social group does
not meet these requirements. Because Varela did not establish eligibility for
asylum, she necessarily has not established eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
In addition, Varela does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she
failed to appeal the finding that she was ineligible for CAT protection.
Accordingly, she has abandoned any argument related to this issue. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Varela’s petition for review is DENIED.
2