Judis Flores-Gutierrez v. Jefferson Session, 690 F. App'x 196

Petitioners Judis Lisseth Flores-Gutierrez and her minor son, natives of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the BIA denied relief and the petitioners appealed.
Petitioners did not contest the BIA’s denial of CAT relief on appeal, leaving asylum and withholding as the contested issues.
The IJ had requested corroborating evidence of persecution; petitioners failed to provide such evidence and did not show it was unavailable.
Petitioners claimed membership in two proposed particular social groups: (1) students harassed/targeted for gang recruitment; and (2) fishermen targeted by gangs for recruitment or drug transport.
The BIA concluded those groups were defined by the persecutory conduct itself and therefore could not form protected social groups; it denied asylum and withholding of removal.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo, and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners proved nexus to a protected ground for asylum	Petitioners argued gang persecution targeted them as students and fishermen, members of particular social groups	Government/ BIA argued groups are defined by the persecution and thus not cognizable particular social groups; corroboration was missing	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA; groups are defined by persecution and not protected; corroboration lacking — asylum denied
Whether petitioners provided requested corroborating evidence	Petitioners implicitly argued corroboration was unnecessary or unavailable	BIA/IJ required corroboration; petitioners failed to supply or show unavailability	Held: Petitioners failed to provide corroboration and did not show it was unavailable; BIA could deny on that basis
Whether past persecution or fear of future persecution shown	Petitioners asserted past harm and fear of future harm from gangs	BIA found evidence insufficient and group nexus lacking	Held: BIA did not err — neither past nor future persecution proved on protected-ground nexus
Whether withholding of removal standard is met given asylum denial	Petitioners argued withholding standard should be satisfied	Government argued withholding requires a higher showing and cannot be met when asylum fails	Held: Because asylum entitlement not established, petitioners cannot meet the more stringent withholding standard; denied

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir.) (waiver where issue not briefed on appeal)
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for BIA factual findings)
Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580 (5th Cir.) (corroboration requirement when IJ requests evidence)
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (groups defined by persecution are not cognizable)
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (persecution cannot be on account of a group defined by the persecution)
Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653 (5th Cir.) (withholding standard is more stringent than asylum)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (withholding requires higher showing)