Case: 17-60563 Document: 00514681803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2018 No. 17-60563 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SIOLA DINORA QUINTEROS-HERNANDEZ; ALEXIS ANTONIO HERRERA-QUINTEROS, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 680 451 BIA No. A208 680 452 Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Soila Dinora Quinteros-Hernandez 1 and her minor son, Alexis Antonio Herrera-Quinteros, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying their request for asylum and * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 “Soila” is the correct spelling of Quinteros-Hernandez’s first name. It is misspelled in the case caption. Case: 17-60563 Document: 00514681803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2018 No. 17-60563 withholding of removal. Quinteros-Hernandez, as lead petitioner, challenges the BIA’s decision that she and Herrera-Quinteros were ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. She argues that she stated a viable claim for asylum and withholding of removal because “Family of Soila Quinteros- Hernandez, persecuted by a gang in El Salvador,” constitutes a cognizable particular social group and because there was a nexus between this ground and her alleged past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution. Because the BIA approved of, and relied on, the IJ’s findings, we may review the decisions of both the BIA and the 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. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, we may not reverse the factual findings of the BIA unless the evidence compels it, i.e., the evidence must be so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to refugees. Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2006). Refugees are people who are unable or unwilling to return to their native countries because they have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of future persecution and who demonstrate that “at least one central reason” for the persecution is a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group. Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[A]lthough a statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for harm, it cannot be “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that her life or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals