Galo-Betancourt v. Garland
21-60196
| 5th Cir. | Jun 24, 2022Background
- Petitioner Madelin Johely Galo-Betancourt, a Honduran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that denial.
- The record showed Galo-Betancourt was never threatened or physically harmed by the Mara-18 gang.
- She argued persecution based on (1) membership in a proposed particular social group (people perceived by gangs as contravening rules/resisting authority), (2) imputed anti-gang political opinion, and (3) family membership.
- The BIA rejected the PSG and other claims; Galo-Betancourt did not brief her challenge to the PSG determination on appeal (abandonment).
- The Fifth Circuit denied review of the asylum and withholding claims (substantial-evidence) and dismissed the unexhausted CAT claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence compels finding past persecution supporting asylum | Galo-Betancourt argued she faced persecution by Mara-18 warranting asylum | Government argued record did not show threats, harm, or persecution by the gang | Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA; petitioner failed to show past persecution — asylum denied |
| Whether “persons perceived by gangs as contravening rules or resisting authority” is a cognizable particular social group (PSG) | Galo-Betancourt argued the group is a PSG giving rise to asylum protection | Government and BIA said the group is not cognizable; petitioner failed to brief challenge to that conclusion | Held: Issue abandoned on appeal; antagonistic relationship with gangs alone does not establish a PSG |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to protection based on imputed political opinion or family membership | Galo-Betancourt asserted gangs imputed anti-gang political opinion and targeted her based on family ties | Government argued record did not support nexus to imputed political opinion or family-based persecution | Held: Record does not support grants on imputed political opinion or family membership |
| Withholding of removal and CAT claim (standard and jurisdiction) | Galo-Betancourt sought withholding and CAT protection | Government argued petitioner cannot meet the higher withholding standard; CAT claim was unexhausted | Held: Withholding denied because asylum not shown; CAT claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (review scope—BIA decision generally reviewed)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review standard)
- Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (asylum/persecution analysis)
- Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003) (failure to brief issues constitutes abandonment)
- Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2016) (antagonistic relationship with gangs alone does not establish a PSG)
- Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265 (5th Cir. 2021) (issues on imputed political opinion and family membership)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (withholding of removal is a more demanding standard than asylum)
- Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353 (5th Cir. 2022) (CAT claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when unexhausted)