Case: 19-60161 Document: 00515328504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60161 March 2, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LESLY MARILU AYALA ROJAS; NAHOMY JASURI RODRIGUEZ AYALA, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 838 823 BIA No. A209 838 824 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lesly Marilu Ayala Rojas (Ayala), and derivative beneficiary Nahomy Jasuri Rodriguez Ayala (Rodriguez), are natives and citizens of Honduras. They concede their removability from the United States for entering it without valid entry documents, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), but petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Ayala’s application for asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60161 Document: 00515328504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020 No. 19-60161 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In her application for relief, Ayala alleged Mara 18 gang members in Honduras extorted money from her after she opened a small business. She also alleged they threatened her after she stopped paying them. She based her eligibility for relief on membership in a particular social group (PSG): “Honduran women who fear violence and delinquency in their home country”. Ayala claims: (1) the IJ and BIA incorrectly limited the definition of persecution to require physical harm; (2) the IJ and BIA created an improperly heightened legal standard for asylum by conflating elements of asylum eligibility during their analyses; (3) the IJ made no discrete finding, as required, concerning harm amounting to future persecution; (4) the IJ and BIA made legal and factual errors concerning the importance of her sex to the viability of her proposed PSG; (5) the IJ and BIA failed to apply a mixed-motive analysis to determine whether her persecution was on account of a protected ground; (6) remand is warranted in the light of Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2018); and (7) the Government failed to show she could safely relocate within Honduras. Her first claim fails, and the rest are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Ayala has waived any claims concerning withholding of removal, CAT relief, and severing Rodriguez’ derivative application for relief by failing to brief them on appeal. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citations omitted).) In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The determination an alien is ineligible ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals