Case: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 19, 2021 No. 19-60706 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Ingrid Manzano-Murillo; Edwin Johan Alvarado- Manzano; Suany Jasary Alvarado-Manzano, Petitioners, versus Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 181 350 BIA No. A202 181 351 BIA No. A202 181 352 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ingrid Manzano-Murillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, seeks review of the dismissal by the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 No. 19-60706 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners argue, among other things, that the BIA erred by declining to consider one of their proposed particular social groups (PSGs) and in finding that they failed to establish the requisite nexus between their feared persecution and their membership in a PSG. Because the BIA approved of, and relied on, the IJ’s findings, we review the decisions of both the BIA and IJ. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, we review for substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not eligible for relief. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, we may not reverse the factual findings of the BIA unless the evidence compels it. Id. at 517-18. As to petitioners’ first argument, the petitioners submitted two briefs to the IJ, wherein they proposed three particular social groups: “witnesses who have cooperated with law enforcement against criminals in Honduras,” “family members of witnesses who have cooperated with law enforcement against criminals in Honduras,” and “immediate family members of Edwin Alvarado.” They now contend that the documentary evidence they submitted to the IJ and their counsel’s closing argument to the IJ allowed for the reasonable inference that they intended to propose a fourth PSG comprised of Hondurans who participated in a witness protection program. Thus, petitioners argue that the BIA erred by declining to consider their applications in light of that fourth group. An asylum applicant has the burden to establish his entitlement to relief by “clearly indicat[ing] on the record before the [IJ] . . . the exact delineation of any particular social group(s) to which she claims to belong.” 2 Case: 19-60706 Document: 00515710613 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 No. 19-60706 Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). During proceedings before the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals