Case: 18-60558 Document: 00515320111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 24, 2020 No. 18-60558 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SARA LOURDES GUERRA-DE CARDOZA; EMILIA VALENCIA-DE GUERRA; JACQUELINE PAOLA CARDOZA-GUERRA; CARLOS ANTONIO CARDOZA- GUERRA; GENESIS VALERIA CARDOZA-GUERRA, 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 274 075 BIA No. A208 274 076 BIA No. A208 274 077 BIA No. A208 274 078 BIA No. A208 274 079 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioners Sara Lourdes Guerra-De Cardoza (Guerra), on behalf of herself and her three children, and Guerra’s mother, Emilia Valencia-De Guerra (Valencia), natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the Board of * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 18-60558 Document: 00515320111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 No. 18-60558 Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing their consolidated appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Because petitioners fail to brief any challenge to the denied CAT relief, this claim is abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).) Guerra contends the BIA erred by finding her proposed social group— “Salvadoran women unable to escape domestic violence by their domestic partners”—is not cognizable. More specifically, she claims the BIA incorrectly: gave retroactive effect to Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (Att’y Gen. 2018), vacated in part, Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed, No. 19-5013 (D.C. Cir. 30 Jan. 2019); and concluded her proposed group was principally defined by characteristics of the alleged persecution and was impermissibly circular. Valencia contends the BIA erred by finding the claimed persecution was motivated by the alleged persecutor’s (Guerra’s former partner) desire for money, rather than by membership in her proposed particular social group, “immediate family members” of Guerra. (Before the BIA, Valencia also contended she was a member of a group comprised of “Salvadoran women unable to escape domestic violence from a child’s partner”. Her failure, however, to brief any challenge to the BIA’s finding this group non-cognizable has abandoned the issue. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833 (citation omitted).) In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA’s decision), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517– 18 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). On substantial-evidence review, a factual finding will not be disturbed unless petitioner demonstrates “that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. at 518 (citation omitted). Among such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals