Case: 20-60771 Document: 00516154837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 5, 2022 No. 20-60771 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Betsy Aletandra Vasquez-Canas; Jimena Dayana Vasquez-Canas, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A213 447 680, A213 447 681 Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Petitioners Jimena Vasquez-Canas and Betsy Aletandra Vasquez- Canas are the minor children of Katheline Canas-Mayora, and they are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They seek review of the dismissal by the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60771 Document: 00516154837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 No. 20-60771 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal by the Immigration Judge (IJ). On review of an order of the BIA, we examine “the BIA’s decision and only consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, we review both decisions. Id. The petitioners argue that the IJ erroneously failed to consider their asylum and withholding of removal cases independently of their mother’s case, resulting in a denial of their due process right to a full and fair hearing. In connection with their asylum claims, they argue that the BIA and IJ erred by failing to consider their harm and the different nexuses for such harm. The petitioners also argue that they would qualify for membership in a different particular social group than their mother, such as “children who fled a violent parent” or “family of their mother or non-biological child of an El Salvadoran parent.” Regarding withholding of removal, they argue that their withholding claims by law cannot be derivative of their mother’s claim and so the IJ was required to consider their claims separately. The respondent argues that the petitioners have waived a challenge to the merits denial of their derivative asylum claims because they have raised no specific challenge to the merits denial of their mother’s asylum application. The respondent is correct that the petitioners have made no argument challenging the denial of their mother’s asylum claim on the merits. Because their asylum claims were derivative of their mother’s claim, they have waived review of their derivative asylum claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Calderon-Ontiveros v. I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). The petition for review as to this claim is DENIED. 2 Case: 20-60771 Document: 00516154837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 No. 20-60771 In response to the petitioners’ argument that the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals