Seydi Chavez-Euceba v. Matthew Whitaker

Case: 18-60250 Document: 00514777026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-60250 United States Court of Appeals Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit FILED December 28, 2018 SEYDI SUYAPA CHAVEZ-EUCEBA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 686 571 Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Seydi Suyapa Chavez-Euceba, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Chavez contends she established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 18-60250 Document: 00514777026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 No. 18-60250 membership in a particular social group: young Honduran females who flee their country because of recruitment by gangs. Our court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision, but “may review the IJ’s findings and conclusions if the BIA adopts them”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for “substantial evidence” and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo,“unless a conclusion embodies the [BIA’s] interpretation of an ambiguous provision of a statute that it administers; a conclusion of the latter type is entitled to the deference prescribed by [Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984)]”. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012) (first alteration in original) (citations omitted). Such deference is required where, as here, the BIA has applied the social distinction and particularity test to determine a proposed group does not qualify as a “particular social group.” See id. at 521. Therefore, our court will defer to the BIA’s conclusion unless it was arbitrary and capricious. See id. To be eligible for asylum, Chavez must establish “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for” the persecution she suffered. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). A particular social group is “a group of persons that share a common immutable characteristic that they either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences”. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). Our court defers to the BIA’s requirements that a particular social group have “social visibility”, or social distinction, such that “members of a society perceive those with the characteristics in question as members of a 2 Case: 18-60250 Document: 00514777026 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 No. 18-60250 ...

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