Case: 16-60153 Document: 00514377074 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 7, 2018 No. 16-60153 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GLADIS NOHEMI SOLORZANO-DE MALDONADO; JENNIFER ARELY MALDONADO-SOLORZANO, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A206 763 543, A206 763 544 Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pro se petitioners Gladis Nohemi Solorzano-De Maldonado (“Solorzano- De Maldonado”) and her minor daughter, Jennifer Arely Maldonado- Solorzano (“Maldonado-Solorzano”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60153 Document: 00514377074 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 No. 16-60153 applications for asylum and withholding of removal and ordering that they be removed to El Salvador. The BIA concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that “single women that live alone and are targeted by gangs for sexual abuse” constitute a socially distinct group in Salvadoran society because the petitioners did not “identify any specific evidence or testimony which indicates that Salvadoran society perceives their specific particular social group . . . as a socially distinct group.” As a result, the BIA concluded, the petitioners did not establish eligibility either for asylum or for withholding of removal. The BIA also concluded that respondents did not establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence. 1 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.’” 2 We review the decision of the IJ only to the extent that it influenced the BIA’s decision. 3 On appeal, the petitioners argue that the BIA acted arbitrarily because: (1) petitioners presented substantial evidence to support their claim that society perceives their proposed particular social group to be distinct; and (2) asylum was granted in other cases where women feared violence in their home countries, contending that their situation mirrors that of the petitioners in Matter of A-R-C-G-, in which the BIA found that “married 1 Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 2 Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (quoting Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)). 3 Masih v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2008). 2 Case: 16-60153 Document: 00514377074 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 No. 16-60153 women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals