Manzano-Murillo v. Rosen

Case: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 19, 2021
No. 19-60706
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Ingrid Manzano-Murillo; Edwin Johan Alvarado-
Manzano; Suany Jasary Alvarado-Manzano,
Petitioners,
versus
Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A202 181 350
BIA No. A202 181 351
BIA No. A202 181 352
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ingrid Manzano-Murillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, on behalf
of herself and her two minor children, seeks review of the dismissal by the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 19-60706
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from the immigration
judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners
argue, among other things, that the BIA erred by declining to consider one of
their proposed particular social groups (PSGs) and in finding that they failed
to establish the requisite nexus between their feared persecution and their
membership in a PSG.
Because the BIA approved of, and relied on, the IJ’s findings, we
review the decisions of both the BIA and IJ. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, we review for substantial evidence the
determination that an alien is not eligible for relief. Orellana-Monson v.
Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, we may not
reverse the factual findings of the BIA unless the evidence compels it. Id. at
517-18.
As to petitioners’ first argument, the petitioners submitted two briefs
to the IJ, wherein they proposed three particular social groups: “witnesses
who have cooperated with law enforcement against criminals in Honduras,”
“family members of witnesses who have cooperated with law enforcement
against criminals in Honduras,” and “immediate family members of Edwin
Alvarado.” They now contend that the documentary evidence they
submitted to the IJ and their counsel’s closing argument to the IJ allowed for
the reasonable inference that they intended to propose a fourth PSG
comprised of Hondurans who participated in a witness protection program.
Thus, petitioners argue that the BIA erred by declining to consider their
applications in light of that fourth group.
An asylum applicant has the burden to establish his entitlement to
relief by “clearly indicat[ing] on the record before the [IJ] . . . the exact
delineation of any particular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.”
2
Case: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 19-60706
Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). During proceedings before the IJ,
petitioners never made clear their intent to propose a fourth PSG. Neither
petitioners’ documentary evidence, counsel’s remarks at closing, nor
Manzano-Murillo’s testimony sufficed to raise petitioners’ participation in
witness protection as a cognizable PSG, given that they were represented by
counsel in his immigration proceedings and counsel was given the
opportunity to articulate the parameters of the PSGs that petitioners were
proposing. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 191-93.
Accordingly, they fail to demonstrate that the BIA erred in declining to
consider a different PSG for the first time on appeal from the IJ. See
Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2019).
As to petitioners’ second argument, they fail to show any error in the
BIA’s findings that petitioners did not demonstrate that a “central reason”
for any persecution was their membership in one of the PSGs that was
properly before the BIA and, accordingly, that the BIA’s determination was
not supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(1); see
Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. Because petitioners have failed to show
that they were or would be persecuted based on a protected ground, they are
ineligible for asylum, and we do not reach petitioners’ other asylum-related
arguments.
In light of the foregoing, petitioners have not demonstrated that the
evidence compels a reversal of the BIA’s denial of asylum. See Orellana-
Monson, 685 F.3d at 518, 521-22. Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s
denial of their applications for withholding of removal or CAT protection.
They have therefore abandoned those claims by failing to brief them. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, petitioners’ petition for review are DENIED.
3