Case: 18-60795 Document: 00515324648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60795 February 27, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BERTA ISABEL LOPEZ-DIAZ; BRITANY MICHELE VELASQUEZ-LOPEZ, 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 236 914 BIA No. A209 236 915 Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Berta Isabel Lopez-Diaz and her minor daughter, Britany Michele Velasquez-Lopez, petition this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Lopez-Diaz argues that the immigration judge (IJ) did not analyze each of her proposed alternative * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60795 Document: 00515324648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 No. 18-60795 particular social groups or clarify which groups he considered. She further asserts that the BIA should have remanded the case to the IJ for consideration of her alternative particular social groups as required by Matter of W-Y-C & H-O-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189 (BIA 2018). On petition for review of an agency decision, this court reviews factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, meaning that “this court may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General have discretion to grant asylum to refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). To be eligible for asylum as a refugee, the applicant must show “that she was persecuted in the past on account of one of the five statutory grounds or that she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future because of one of those grounds.” Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)-(2). The “on account of language” contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) “requires the alien to prove some nexus between the persecution and the five protected grounds.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2002). The statutorily protected ground must be “at least one central reason” for the harm. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Contrary to Lopez-Diaz’s argument, Matter of W-Y-C & H-O-B does not require the BIA to remand this case for consideration of her alternative proposed particular social groups. In that case, the respondent conceded the social group she raised ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals