Case: 20-60682 Document: 00516161005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 10, 2022
No. 20-60682 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Laurin Steffany Gamez-Padilla; Jose Santos Ramos-
Gamez; Cinthya Yamileth Ramos-Castillo; Gabriela
Alejandra Ramos-Ramos; Deysi Leonora Padilla-Soler;
Jose Santos Ramos Maldonado,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 429 889
BIA No. A206 429 890
BIA No. A206 429 891
BIA No. A206 429 892
BIA No. A206 694 277
BIA No. A206 694 278
Case: 20-60682 Document: 00516161005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2022
No. 20-60682
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Santos Ramos Maldonado (the lead respondent), his wife Deysi
Leonora Padilla-Soler, his adult children, Cinthya Yamileth Ramos-Castillo
and Laurin Steffany Gamez-Padilla, and his grandchildren, Jose Santos
Ramos-Gamez and Gabriela Alejandro Ramos-Ramos, are natives and
citizens of Honduras. They seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial
of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
As an initial matter, the petitioners do not brief any argument
challenging the BIA’s finding that Ramos Maldonado was not persecuted due
to his political opinion. Nor do they challenge the BIA’s determination that
Gamez-Padilla and Ramos-Castillo did not have a reasonable fear of
persecution on account of their membership in the family of Ramos
Maldonado. Accordingly, they have waived those issues. See Chambers v.
Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(8)(A).
Findings of fact, including the denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT protection, are reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). This court
may not reverse factual findings unless the evidence “compels” reversal—
i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2
Case: 20-60682 Document: 00516161005 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2022
No. 20-60682
Here, Ramos Maldonado sought asylum and withholding of removal
based on his membership in the particular social group of “members of the
board of the community organization Colonia Monte De Sinai.” To be a
member of a particular social group, an applicant must establish that the
group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable
characteristic; (2) defined with particularity; and (3) socially distinct within
the society in question.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA
2014). A common immutable characteristic must be a characteristic that
cannot be changed or should not be required to change because it is
fundamental to the applicant’s identity or conscience. Hernandez-De La
Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that Ramos Maldonado failed to establish
that the organization’s board members share an immutable characteristic.
See id.; see also Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 415 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Ramos Maldonado failed to establish that his proposed
particular social group is cognizable, and this portion of the petition for
review is denied. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s decision to deny relief
under the CAT because the family failed to show acquiescence or willful
blindness in any torture by a government official. See Hakim v. Holder,
628 F.3d 151, 155-56 (5th Cir. 2010). The record indicates that arrests were
made in response to the shooting of Ramos Maldonado. “Neither the failure
to apprehend the persons threatening the alien, nor the lack of financial
resources to eradicate the threat or risk of torture constitute sufficient state
action for purposes of the [CAT].” Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d
343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3