Case: 20-60220 Document: 00515830101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 21, 2021
No. 20-60220 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jessica Cecibel Guzman-Ayala,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 852 024
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jessica Cecibel Guzman-Ayala is a native and citizen of El Salvador.
She petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60220 Document: 00515830101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
No. 20-60220
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We review the decision of the BIA and consider the IJ’s decision only
to the extent it influenced the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th
Cir. 2007). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are
reviewed for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511,
517-18 (5th Cir. 2012); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner must show that “the
evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary
conclusion.” Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Guzman-Ayala challenges the BIA’s denial of her request for asylum
and withholding of removal based on Guzman-Ayala’s membership in the
particular social group of Salvadoran women who “are unable to leave their
domestic relationship.” A particular social group must be made up of
members who share a common immutable characteristic, be defined with
particularity, and be distinct from other persons within society. Matter of L-
E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019); see also Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936 F.3d
249, 251 (5th Cir. 2019). We find no legal error in the BIA’s analysis of the
asylum claim, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
finding that Guzman-Ayala is ineligible for asylum because her proposed
particular social group does not meet these requirements. See Gonzales-Veliz
v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229-34 (5th Cir. 2019); Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at
517-18; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
We have long held that, “[b]ecause the level of proof required to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than that required for
asylum, failure to establish eligibility for asylum is dispositive of claims for
withholding of removal.” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 20-60220 Document: 00515830101 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
No. 20-60220
2006); see Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020); Dayo
v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012); Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788,
793 (5th Cir. 2004). We therefore reject the petitioner’s contention that the
BIA legally erred in concluding that her claim for withholding of removal fell
with her claim for asylum.
Finally, Guzman-Ayala disagrees with the BIA’s factual finding that
she is ineligible for protection under the CAT. She maintains that she
provided credible testimony to support her argument that her former
domestic partner would torture her upon her return to El Salvador and that
Salvadoran officials would acquiesce in that torture. Because the record
evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA,
we may not disturb the BIA’s finding. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3