Case: 18-60540 Document: 00514992226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 11, 2019 No. 18-60540 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ESTHER ELIZABETH ZARAT-UMANZOR; DANNY JOSIAH ZUNIGA- ZARAT; OSCAR JOSIAH ZARAT-UMANZOR; DIDIER JOSIAH ARRIAZA- ZARAT, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 913 684 BIA No. A202 094 967 BIA No. A202 095 036 BIA No. A202 095 041 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Esther Elizabeth Zarat-Umanzor, a native and citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, designating her three sons, Danny Josiah Zuniga-Zarat, Oscar Josiah Zarat-Umanzor, and Didier Josiah * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60540 Document: 00514992226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2019 No. 18-60540 Arriaza-Zarat, as derivative beneficiaries. In her application, Zarat-Umanzor sought relief based on her membership in a particular social group, namely Guatemalan women who are unable to protect themselves and their children from violence. Her claim stemmed from the murder of her long-time partner, who was the father of two of her children. Zarat-Umanzor witnessed the murder, and one of her sons was shot during the same incident. In this court, Zarat-Umanzor petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application. To support her asylum claim, Zarat-Umanzor was required to show that she was persecuted or had a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala and that a central reason for the persecution was her membership in the proposed particular social group. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). As a threshold matter, it is factually incorrect for Zarat-Umanzor to argue, as she does here, that the IJ found no past persecution. The IJ, in fact, found that the murder of Zarat-Umanzor’s partner and the shooting of her son rose to the level of persecution. We have rejected social groups that are similarly amorphous to the group proposed by Zarat-Umanzor and perceive no error in the determination that her group is not cognizable. See id. at 521-22. By failing to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group, Zarat-Umanzor necessarily failed to establish a nexus between membership in such a group and any persecution. See id. at 522. Furthermore, even if Zarat-Umanzor had established a cognizable particular social group, the record does not compel a conclusion that Zarat-Umanzor’s membership in her proposed group was or will be a central reason for any persecution. See id. at 518. Zarat-Umanzor’s 2 Case: 18-60540 Document: 00514992226 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2019 No. 18-60540 ineligibility for asylum is dispositive of her claim for withholding of removal. See id. at 522. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals