Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 27, 2022
No. 21-60329
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Noemi Rebolloso Martinez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A209 259 079
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Noemi Rebolloso Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 21-60329
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We generally review only the BIA’s
decision except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. See Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
The IJ determined that Martinez was ineligible for asylum because she
did not file her application within one year of her arrival in the United States.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). The BIA determined that the IJ’s untimeliness
finding was dispositive since Martinez waived any challenge on appeal.
Similarly, Martinez abandons any challenge to the BIA’s waiver and
untimeliness findings by failing to challenge them before this court. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Contrary to Martinez’s argument, the BIA’s conclusion that
Martinez’s proposed particular social group (PSG), “Mexican women who
don’t have the protection of a male figure” was not cognizable because it
lacked social distinction aligns with this court’s jurisprudence. See Jaco v.
Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 407 (5th Cir. 2021); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685
F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2012). Even assuming Martinez’s proposed PSG
was cognizable, Martinez’s testimony that she and a male friend were robbed
by two masked gang members belies her assertion that she was targeted
because she was a female unaccompanied by a male protective figure.
Instead, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Martinez
was the victim of a random act of violence perpetrated by gang members and
her fear of similar victimization recuring in the future is insufficient to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr,
938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 492-
93 (5th Cir. 2015); Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s unexhausted claims that she will
be targeted on account of political opinion and that she established a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground based on a
2
Case: 21-60329 Document: 00516372640 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 21-60329
pattern or practice of persecution of persons similarly situated to her. See
Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii).
Martinez does not challenge the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s
determination that she failed to demonstrate eligibility for protection under
the CAT. She also fails to challenge the BIA’s decision not to reinstate the
IJ’s grant of voluntary departure. The claims are thus deemed abandoned.
See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Accordingly, the petition for review is
DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
3