Case: 17-60087 Document: 00514396589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-60087 March 21, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LARISSA LISBETH ZAMBRANO-MALDONADO; SOJAIRY DARLENY
HERNANDEZ-ZAMBRANO,
Petitioners
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 478 828
BIA No. A206 478 829
Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Larissa Lisbeth Zambrano-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Honduras,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her request for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). She contends the BIA committed error by concluding she was
not a member of a particular social group comprised of Honduran women
unable to leave their domestic partners. Sojairy Darleny Hernandez-
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 17-60087 Document: 00514396589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
No. 17-60087
Zambrano, Zambrano’s minor daughter, is a derivative beneficiary of her
application.
A factual determination an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding
of removal, or relief under the CAT is reviewed under the substantial-evidence
standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that
standard, an immigration court’s factual finding is not erroneous unless “the
evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
against it”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). It is petitioner’s burden to demonstrate the evidence compels
a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d
295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).
Zambrano has not met these standards because the evidence does not
compel the conclusion she was unable to leave her domestic partner. Id. We
lack jurisdiction to consider her claims the BIA committed error by defining
her social group differently than the IJ and making factual findings because
they were not exhausted. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir.
2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2001). In short,
Zambrano has not shown the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that
reached by the IJ and BIA on whether she was entitled to asylum. Zhao, 404
F.3d at 306. She concomitantly has not shown she is entitled to withholding
of removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Finally, because
she has not shown removal to Honduras will more likely than not subject her
to officially-sanctioned torture, she has not shown she should receive CAT
relief. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(a)(1).
DENIED.
2