Ramirez-De Martinez v. Garland

Case: 20-61143 Document: 00516105082 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 23, 2021 No. 20-61143 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Maria Guadalupe Ramirez-De Martinez; Erson Alonso Martinez; Andres Alonzo Martinez, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 418 068 BIA No. A209 418 069 BIA No. A209 427 284 Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Maria Ramirez-De Martinez, Andreas Alonzo Martinez, and Erson Alonzo Martinez Ramirez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61143 Document: 00516105082 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2021 No. 20-61143 review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We review only the BIA’s decision and do not review the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision unless it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The petitioners argue that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s determination that they were not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because they failed to demonstrate that they were subjected to past persecution or that they faced a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2019) (withholding); Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (asylum). Specifically, the IJ found that the petitioners’ proposed social groups were not cognizable because they were not socially distinct and did not exist independently of the harm asserted. To be cognizable, a proposed particular social group must “exist independently of the harm asserted.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 230 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The proposed particular social groups of “head of household whose family has been victims of threats of violence,” “women who are victims of violence or threats of violence,” and “young boys whose parents have been the victims of the threat of violence” are not cognizable because they are defined by the threat of violence. See Gonzales- Veliz, 938 F.3d at 230. Accordingly, the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements for asylum and withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). PETITION DENIED. 2 20-61143 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Ramirez-De Martinez v. Garland 23 November 2021 Immigration Unpublished 04f302c2c7633be6bf3f9c25eee94ade3c60aa43

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