Case: 18-60352 Document: 00515474458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60352 July 1, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MELIDA ELISSA FLORES-GUARDADO, also known as Melida Elissa Flores Guardado, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 005 638 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melida Elissa Flores-Guardado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed her appeal and affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) ordering her removal and denying asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and humanitarian asylum. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60352 Document: 00515474458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 No. 18-60352 Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Flores-Guardado contends that her notice to appear, which did not specify the date and time of the removal hearing, was an invalid charging document that did not vest the immigration court with jurisdiction. However, in the immigration proceedings, she did not attack the validity of her notice to appear or challenge the agency’s jurisdiction. Because she failed to exhaust this argument, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d at 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). Flores-Guardado also challenges the BIA’s decision as to her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. She does not raise any claim as to the denial of humanitarian asylum and has abandoned any challenge to that decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Because the BIA approved of and considered the IJ’s findings, the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions both are reviewable. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, Flores-Guardado must establish that the evidence compels a determination contrary to the BIA’s decision. Id. at 537. Flores-Guardado asserts that the BIA wrongly concluded that she failed to propose a cognizable particular social group for purposes of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal. She contends that she is entitled to relief based on her proposed group of “Salvadoran women abused as a result of an unescapable imputed relationship.” Substantial evidence supports the decision that Flores-Guardado did not show that she was a member of a cognizable particular social group. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-537. Seemingly, the group is improperly defined by the persecutory conduct aimed at its members. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-519 (5th Cir. 2012). In any event, the alleged group lacks social visibility and particularity. See id. 2 Case: 18-60352 Document: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals