Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2021 No. 20-60276 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Laudenia Elisabeth Castillo-Martinez; Jose Antonio Caballero-Castillo; Gerson David Caballero-Castillo; Claudia Julissa Caballero-Castillo, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 771 252 BIA No. A206 771 253 BIA No. A206 771 254 BIA No. A206 771 362 Before King, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 No. 20-60276 An Immigration Judge denied Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently dismissed Petitioners’ appeal. Petitioners now seek review of that order by the Board of Immigration Appeals. For the reasons that follow, we DENY the petition for review. I. After Laudenia Elisabeth Castillo-Martinez and her three children (collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the United States without admission or parole, they were served with notices to appear and charged with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). After conceding removability, Castillo-Martinez filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on behalf of herself and her children. Castillo- Martinez claimed membership in a particular social group defined as “Honduran common law married wom[e]n in a domestic abuse relationship unable to leave.” She explained that she left Honduras because her former partner was physically and verbally abusive, and that she had unsuccessfully tried to leave her partner before coming to the United States by first going to her mother’s home. Additionally, she explained that she did not report the abuse to the authorities because the closest police station was two and a half hours away and she did not have a landline or cellular reception. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the application, and Castillo- Martinez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. 1 This timely petition for review followed. 1 As part of the appeal, Castillo-Martinez also filed a motion for remand in order to propose a new, particular social group. The BIA, however, found that a remand was not 2 Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2021 No. 20-60276 II. We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not overturn a factual finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals