Hernandez-Morales v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60124
Summary Calendar

Fabiola Yomara Hernandez-Morales,

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A202 070 721

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fabiola Yomara Hernandez-Morales, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, has petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the
immigration judge denying her applications for asylum and withholding of

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5
TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60124 Document: 00515553738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020

No. 19-60124
2
removal, claiming fear of persecution on account of membership in a
particular social group, that is, Guatemalan women who are unable to leave a
dating relationship with a gang member or who are viewed as property by a
gang member. She also seeks review of the denial of her motion to terminate
the removal proceedings, which challenged the BIA’s jurisdiction on the
ground that the notice to appear was defective.
Citing Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 333-40 (Att’y Gen. 2018),
vacated in part by Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d
in part, rev’d in part, vacated and remanded, 965 F. 3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020),
the BIA held that Hernandez-Morales had failed to meet her burden of
showing that her claimed social group existed independently of the feared
harm, was sufficiently particular, or was perceived as socially distinct in
Guatemalan society. It further held that Hernandez-Morales had not shown
that any past or future harm she feared had a nexus to a protected ground, as
it involved purely personal matters.
Hernandez-Morales has not shown that it was unreasonable for the
BIA to rely on the Attorney General’s reasoning in A-B-. See Gonzales-Veliz
v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 228-35 (5th Cir. 2019); see also A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at
334-35. Nor has she shown that the BIA determined improperly that she had
failed to show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to
protect her. See Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 233; Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d
435, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Hernandez-Morales did not meet her
burden with respect to her asylum application, the BIA concluded correctly
that she necessarily cannot do so with respect to her application for
withholding of removal. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817-18 (5th
Cir. 2017).
Hernandez-Morales contends that the BIA wrongfully denied her
motion to terminate the removal proceedings in light of Pereira v. Sessions,
Case: 19-60124 Document: 00515553738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020

No. 19-60124
3
138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The argument Hernandez-Morales makes here was
rejected in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied, 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020). The petition for review is
DENIED.

Case: 19-60124 Document: 00515553738 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/04/2020