Case: 21-60338 Document: 00516574133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2022 No. 21-60338 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Yanci Margarita Ayala-Teyes; Franklin Waldemar Salgado-Ayala, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 453 628 BIA No. A208 453 629 Before Wiener, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Yanci Margarita Ayala-Teyes and her son, Franklin Waldemar Salgado-Ayala, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Ayala-Teyes sought relief based on membership in two particular social groups (PSGs): “Salvadoran woman * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 21-60338 Document: 00516574133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 No. 21-60338 who unknowingly filed police report or reported criminal activity with corrupt Salvadoran police” and “Salvadoran wife/partner of former gang 18 member or perceived gang member [who] was unable to leave her relationship because of her fundamental right to keep her family together.” 1 The BIA held that the first PSG was not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act because the petitioners failed to show that their cooperation with law enforcement was “public in nature.” See Matter of H- L-S-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 228, 237 (BIA 2021). The BIA held that the petitioners’ second PSG was not cognizable because it was overbroad, amorphous, and subjective. We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless the court decides not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Id. at 518 (quotation marks omitted). We do not consider the arguments raised for the first time in a petitioner’s reply brief. See Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 226 n.2 (5th Cir. 2018). The petitioners challenge the BIA’s conclusion that the first PSG was not cognizable. To the extent the petitioners rely on a sentence from H-L-S- A- indicating that the Ninth Circuit considers the public nature of the cooperation significant but not dispositive, the argument is unavailing. In H- L-S-A-, the BIA did not incorporate that view into its own formulation of a 1 Salgado-Ayala sought relief based on the PSGs “Salvadoran baby whose parents unknowingly filed police report or reported criminal activity with corrupt Salvadoran police” and “Salvadoran son of former 18 gang member or perceived gang member.” The BIA found that any challenge related to these PSGs was waived, and the petitioners do not now raise any argument concerning those groups. Thus, they abandon any related claim for relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 2 Case: 21-60338 Document: 00516574133 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 No. 21-60338 cognizable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals