Case: 20-60868 Document: 00516308906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 5, 2022
No. 20-60868 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Elvia Dalila Cabrera-Ardon; Angel Aristides
Castellanos-Cabrera,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 758 135
BIA No. A205 758 134
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60868 Document: 00516308906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 20-60868
Elvia Dalila Cabrera-Ardon and Angel Aristides Castellanos-Cabrera
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision denying
them asylum and withholding of removal. The petition is DENIED.
Cabrera-Ardon and her son Angel are natives and citizens of
Honduras. They applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on past
and future persecution due to Cabrera-Ardon’s membership in a particular
social group consisting of “Honduran female[s] that [were] in a relationship
with a gang member.” The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) concluded that this was not a cognizable “particular social
group” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) and therefore denied their
application.
In their petition for review, the petitioners now abandon any argument
related to the particular social group of “Honduran female[s] that [were] in
a relationship with a gang member.” Therefore, we need not consider
whether such a particular social group could be cognizable. See Thuri v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (explaining that a
claim is waived when it is not raised in the petition for review).
Instead, the petitioners argue that Cabrera-Ardon belonged to a
different particular social group that was cognizable—“Honduran females.”
But the petitioners did not make this argument to the BIA. Therefore, they
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and this court is deprived of
jurisdiction to consider the argument. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766
(5th Cir. 2020); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2009).
Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ presented
argument and they have abandoned all others, the petition for review is
DENIED.
2