Case: 18-60738 Document: 00516221394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 2, 2022
No. 18-60738 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Juana Del Transito Valdez-De Martinez; Diego Enrique
Martinez-Valdez; Erika Maria Martinez-Valdez,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 900 335
No. A208 900 336
No. A208 899 547
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juana Del Transito Valdez-De Martinez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, petitions this court
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 18-60738 Document: 00516221394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2022
No. 18-60738
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. She argues that the immigration judge (IJ) and the
BIA erred by concluding that she failed to demonstrate a nexus between her
particular social group (PSG) and the harm she suffered. She further argues
that the BIA failed to consider new evidence that, if considered, would have
warranted granting her relief from removal. Because Valdez-De Martinez
has not briefed any challenge to the denial of her application for relief under
the Convention Against Torture, she has abandoned the issue. See Soadjede
v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
There is no merit to Valdez-De Martinez’s complaint that, due to
interpreter error, the IJ did not consider the police report made by her
husband. This evidence was contained in the record, and the pertinent
information was not in dispute.
To the extent that the evidence could be construed as a motion for
remand, the BIA denied the motion. This court reviews the BIA’s denial of
a request for a remand “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA relied on its own rules and
a determination that, in light of the record, Valdez-De Martinez’s proffered
evidence did not warrant remand. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
See id.
On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, this court reviews both
decisions. Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 863.
2
Case: 18-60738 Document: 00516221394 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2022
No. 18-60738
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General have
the discretion to grant asylum to refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The
applicant seeking asylum is required to prove some nexus between the
persecution and one of five protected grounds, § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); in other
words, the applicant must prove that a protected ground “was or will be at
least one central reason” for the persecution, § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see Shaikh,
588 F.3d at 864.
This court reviews the agency’s factual findings under the substantial
evidence standard. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir.
2012). To prevail under that standard, the petitioner must show that “the
evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary
conclusion.” Id. at 518 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, the IJ and BIA concluded that the gang targeted Valdez-De
Martinez and her family because her husband was a police officer, and the
gang wanted to continue its criminal activities without disruption. This
conclusion is supported by the record. Thus, substantial evidence supports
the determination that Valdez-De Martinez failed to satisfy the nexus
requirement for her asylum claim. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517-18.
Because Valdez-De Martinez cannot meet the standard for asylum, she “is
necessarily also unable to establish an entitlement to withholding of
removal.” Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
3