Salmeron-Acosta v. Garland

Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
January 12, 2023
No. 22-60390 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Maria Del Carmen Salmeron-Acosta; Fernando De Jesus
Salmeron-Acosta,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 893 934
Agency No. A209 893 935
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Maria Del Carmen Salmeron-Acosta and her son, Fernando De Jesus
Salmeron-Acosta, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-60390
denial of Maria’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Fernando is a derivative of his mother’s application for asylum.
We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying
decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v.
Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the
denial of asylum and withholding of removal, are reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224
(5th Cir. 2019). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Sharma, 729
F.3d at 411.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s holding that Salmeron-
Acosta’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran females
who have been victims of rape by an older man and have suffered emotional,
physical[,] and physiological hardships” is not cognizable because it is
impermissibly defined by the harm. See Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 232.
Because Salmeron-Acosta’s failure to show a cognizable PSG is dispositive
of her asylum and withholding of removal claims, see id. at 224, the rest of her
issues concerning asylum and withholding of removal need not be addressed,
see INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Salmeron-Acosta has abandoned
her arguments concerning due process and prosecutorial discretion because
she inadequately briefed them. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433,
446 (5th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring briefs to
include an argument containing “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for
them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies”).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2