Gonzalez-Gutierrez v. Garland, 20-60413

Jessica Roxana Gonzalez-Gutierrez, a Salvadoran national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal and affirmed the IJ.
Gonzalez-Gutierrez proposed the particular social group (PSG) “Salvadoran women who fear gender based violence and delinquency in their home country.”
She raised additional complaints about the IJ’s handling of her CAT claim (government acquiescence) and portions of her transcript marked “indiscernible.”
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard, and held some claims unexhausted (thus not reviewable).
The court dismissed in part and denied in part: it lacked jurisdiction over unexhausted claims and affirmed the BIA on PSG, persecution, future fear, and withholding determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
PSG cognizability	Gonzalez-Gutierrez: her PSG is cognizable as Salvadoran women fearing gender-based violence/delinquency	BIA/Gov: PSG is overbroad and lacks the particularity required	PSG not cognizable—too broad/"catch-all"; BIA affirmed
Past persecution	She experienced persecution amounting to asylum eligibility	Government: incidents were not extreme/persecutory and were personal/criminally motivated	Substantial evidence supports BIA that incidents did not constitute persecution on a protected ground
Well-founded fear of future persecution	She fears future targeted violence because of her PSG	Government: fear is speculative and not tied to a protected ground	Substantial evidence supports BIA that she lacks a well-founded fear on account of a protected ground
Withholding of removal	Same facts support withholding eligibility	Withholding requires higher showing and follows asylum denial	Denied—because asylum not established, withholding fails as a matter of law
CAT and transcript due-process claims	IJ misapplied government-acquiescence standard for CAT; transcript errors violated due process	Government/BIA: These claims were not raised to the BIA (or were abandoned)	Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; CAT claim treated as abandoned by petitioner

Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2018) (administrative exhaustion requirement for claims to be reviewable)
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2009) (same—jurisdictional consequences of failing to raise issues before the BIA)
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (particularity and specificity requirements for a cognizable PSG)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard and reversal only when evidence compels)
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (factual findings include determinations of asylum eligibility)
Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109 (5th Cir. 2006) (persecution requires more than isolated harassment, threats, or discrimination)
Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing victimization for personal/criminal reasons from persecution on account of a protected ground)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (failure to demonstrate asylum eligibility also defeats withholding relief)