Quellin Escobar-Bustillo v. Jefferson Sessi

Case: 17-60372 Document: 00514470454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60372 May 14, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk QUELLIN GABRIELA ESCOBAR-BUSTILLO; RANFIS JAFEHT MOLINA- ESCOBAR; IAN DAVID MOLINA-ESCOBAR, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 882 098 BIA No. A206 882 099 BIA No. A206 882 100 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Quellin Gabriela Escobar-Bustillo and her two minor sons, Ranfis Jafeht Molina-Escobar and Ian David Molina-Escobar, are natives and citizens of Honduras. Escobar-Bustillo is the lead respondent in this case and her application applies to the derivative beneficiaries, her sons, who did not file * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60372 Document: 00514470454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2018 No. 17-60372 separate applications. Escobar-Bustillo and her sons conceded removability. Escobar-Bustillo filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded that Escobar-Bustillo failed to meet the burden of proof for asylum. The IJ found that she had not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on membership in a particular social group. The IJ granted relief under the CAT. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Escobar-Bustillo’s appeal, concluding that she had not demonstrated an entitlement to relief. We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Escobar-Bustillo argues that the BIA clearly erred by finding that she was not eligible for asylum, because she had not established that she was a member of a particular cognizable social group. In considering whether a particular social group exists, the BIA considers “(1) whether the group’s shared characteristic gives the members the requisite social visibility to make them readily identifiable in society and (2) whether the group can be defined with sufficient particularity to delimit its membership.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). Substantial evidence supports the determination that Escobar-Bustillo did not establish that she was eligible for asylum and could not meet the higher burden of showing eligibility for withholding of removal. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-60372 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Quellin Escobar-Bustillo v. Jefferson Sessi 14 May 2018 Immigration Unpublished c6cf638f3c1128f5f29ffe9c4cdfa9486940cef8

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals