Mary Sagastume-Espinal, et al v. William Barr, U., No. 18-60741 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-60741 Document: 00515093474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60741 Summary Calendar FILED August 27, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARY CRUZ SAGASTUME-ESPINAL; MOISES MEZA-SAGASTUME, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 420 224 BIA No. A206 420 225 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary Cruz Sagastume-Espinal and her minor son Moises MezaSagastume, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-60741 Document: 00515093474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 No. 18-60741 (CAT). The petitioners contend that the BIA erred by concluding that Sagastume-Espinal was not entitled to withholding of removal because she failed to establish that she was a member of a cognizable particular social group comprised of “Honduran women who are afraid to leave their relationship.” We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that SagastumeEspinal did not establish that she was a member of a cognizable particular social group. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. The proposed group lacks the necessary particularity and social distinction. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012). In particular, Sagastume-Espinal has not shown that the terms used to define the group provide a clear benchmark for determining who is within the group or that women who meet the criteria constitute a discrete social group. See id. at 521-22. Further, SagastumeEspinal has not established that Honduran women afraid to leave their relationship constitutes a discernable group, is viewed as a distinct group in Honduras, or otherwise is perceived as significant in Honduran society. See id. at 522. Finally, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that she was unable to leave her domestic partner. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, 2 Case: 18-60741 Document: 00515093474 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 No. 18-60741 Sagastume-Espinal has failed to establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. See Shaikh, 588 F.3d at 863-64. The petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s determination that they waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of their applications for relief under the CAT and Meza-Sagastume’s application for withholding of removal. These issues are therefore abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
