Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395

Gleidy Yessenia Jaco, a Honduran woman, alleged repeated domestic abuse and death threats from a former partner; she obtained child support and a protective order but left Honduras in 2016 with her child and entered the U.S. without documents.
Jaco applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; her child sought derivative asylum.
The IJ denied relief, finding Jaco’s proposed particular social group (PSG) — "Honduran women unable to leave their domestic relationships" — not cognizable and concluding CAT relief was unsupported.
The BIA initially dismissed her appeal, relying on Attorney General precedent that domestic-violence-based PSGs generally fail; Jaco moved for reconsideration and the Fifth Circuit remanded for the BIA to analyze intervening AG decisions.
On remand the BIA again dismissed and denied reconsideration, refusing to consider new PSGs raised for the first time on appeal and holding Jaco’s PSG circularly defined by the persecution; the Fifth Circuit denied review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA abused discretion by refusing to consider or remand for new PSGs raised first on appeal	Jaco: BIA should consider or remand to IJ to evaluate additional PSGs (e.g., Honduran women who oppose male domination)	Govt/BIA: BIA may decline to entertain novel PSGs on appeal; factual findings belong to IJ	Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion; it properly declined to consider new PSGs first raised on appeal
Whether "Honduran women unable to leave their domestic relationships" is a cognizable PSG under the INA	Jaco: the group is defined by immutable characteristics and is particularized/socially distinct	BIA/Govt: the group is circularly defined by the persecution (inability to leave) and thus fails independence, particularity, and social‑distinction requirements	Denied — PSG not cognizable; substantial evidence supports BIA; remand would be futile

Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (held identical PSG not cognizable; court relied on anti‑circularity reasoning)
Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1995) (limits appellate review to agency decisions)
Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2019) (BIA not required to entertain novel PSGs in first instance)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (review limited to BIA decision unless IJ affected it)
Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2013) (discusses Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations)
Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (PSG membership must be at least a central reason for persecution)
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (rejects PSGs defined primarily by the persecution)