Aida Morales-Sucuc De Garcia v. Jefferson S

Case: 16-60747 Document: 00514273497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-60747 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar December 14, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AIDA LETICIA MORALES-SUCUC DE GARCIA; KIMBERLY VANESSA GARCIA MORALES; GEISON JENERSON GARCIA MORALES; JEIMY JAZMIN GARCIA MORALES; KATERINNE EUNICE GARCIA MORALES, Petitioners, versus JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 206 875 003 No. A 206 875 004 No. A 206 875 005 No. A 206 875 006 No. A 206 875 007 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aida Morales-Sucuc de Garcia, on behalf of herself and her four children, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60747 Document: 00514273497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2017 No. 16-60747 petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion for reconsideration of its order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Morales-Sucuc de Garcia asserts that the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. She contends that a “nuclear family can constitute a particular social group for purposes of the INA and the [BIA] erred insofar as it suggests it is an unresolved question.” She also avers that the BIA erred in determining that she failed to prove the requisite nexus between the harms and fears she suffered and her membership in the nuclear family of her son. A motion for reconsideration of a BIA decision may be filed to obtain a re-evaluation of record evidence in light of “a change in the law, a misapplica- tion of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2005); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303. In denying reconsideration, the BIA only analyzed whether Morales- Sucuc de Garcia had identified any error in its determination that “even as- suming [her] membership in a particular social group, she did not meet her burden of establishing that her membership in the group, or any other pro- tected ground ‘was or would be at least one central reason’ why the gang would harm her, or did so in the past.” Accordingly, Morales-Sucuc de Garcia’s theory that a “nuclear family can constitute a particular social group for purposes of the INA and the [BIA] erred insofar as it suggests it is an unresolved question” is not properly before this court. See Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 2017). Morales-Sucuc de Garcia raises the following points challenging the BIA’s determination that she failed to ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals