Case: 19-60134 Document: 00515438893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60134 June 3, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROSA LIDIA MENDOZA-MORAN; SANDRA BEATRIZ MENDOZA-MORAN, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 979 782 BIA No. A208 979 783 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosa Lidia Mendoza-Moran and her teenage daughter, Sandra Beatriz Mendoza-Moran, are natives and citizens of El Salvador who entered the United States at or near Hidalgo, Texas, on April 11, 2016, without being admitted or paroled. They have filed a petition for review of the order from the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-60134 Document: 00515438893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2020 No. 19-60134 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Rosa sought asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group (PSG), which she identified as “Salvadoran women who fear violence and delinquency in their home country.” She listed Sandra as a derivative beneficiary of her asylum application. Sandra also filed an individual asylum application, asserting the same claims as her mother. This court has authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the immigration judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA approved of and relied on some of the IJ’s findings. Accordingly, we review both decisions. See id. Rosa argues that her testimony allowed for the reasonable inference that her proposed PSG also included her status as “a mother who was protecting her child” and that the IJ erred in failing to address that PSG. She asserts that the IJ’s failure deprived her of a full and fair hearing and that the BIA should have ordered a remand. She further argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s finding that the threats she received from criminal gangs in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. An asylum applicant has the burden to establish her entitlement to relief by “clearly indicat[ing] . . . the exact delineation of any social group(s) to which she claims to belong.” Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although Rosa argues that her testimony was sufficient to raise her status as a mother protecting her child as the basis for or a component of a cognizable PSG, that does not suffice under Matter of W-Y-C-, given that she was represented by counsel in her proceedings before the IJ and counsel was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals