Maria Gomez-De Saravia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Case: 18-60532 Document: 00515309155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60532 February 13, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARIA MERCEDES GOMEZ-DE SARAVIA, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 538 949 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maria Mercedes Gomez-De Saravia petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. She sought to present additional evidence to support her application for relief from removal. The BIA denied her motion because her arguments related to her proposed particular social group and nexus to a protected ground are precluded by the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60532 Document: 00515309155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020 No. 18-60532 2018), vacated in part, Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed sub nom. Grace v. Barr, No. 19-5013 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 2019). Motions to reopen removal proceedings are “disfavored, and the [movant has] a heavy burden.” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court reviews an immigration court’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lugo- Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To be eligible for asylum, an alien must qualify as a “refugee,” requiring a showing of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Withholding of removal is a higher standard as it requires a showing that such persecution is “more likely than not.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). Members of a particular social group “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 v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The group must also share characteristics making them socially distinct and thus readily identifiable in society, but the group must “be defined with sufficient particularity to delimit its membership.” Id. at 519 (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). This court, in Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 233-34 (5th Cir. 2019), rejected the argument that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of A-B- constituted a change in policy, id., and held that it is permissible to rely on the Attorney General’s reasoning in ...

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