Medrano, et al v. Barr

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60183
Summary Calendar

KATIA LARIZZA MEDRANO; PERLA LARIZZA NUNEZ-MEDRANO,

Petitioners,

versus

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 206 464 372
No. A 206 464 373

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Katia Medrano and her daughter, Perla Nunez-Medrano, sought asylum

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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
February 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60183 Document: 00515306350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2020

No. 19-60183
2
based on Medrano’s membership in a particular social group, “Honduran
women who are not able to leave their relationship.” The Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) upheld the denial of relief by the immigration judge, who
determined that Medrano was able to leave her abusive domestic relationship.
Medrano moved to reopen the proceeding, asserting that she had new evidence
that her former abuser had joined a gang and was still expressing a desire to
kill her and her daughter. The BIA denied the motion, determining that the
new evidence was largely cumulative and that Medrano had failed to show that
the Honduran police would not assist her. Medrano sought reconsideration,
arguing that her particular social group should be considered as valid and
cognizable and that the BIA had wrongly concluded that the evidence was
cumulative. The BIA denied the motion for reconsideration.
Medrano filed a petition for review, contending that the BIA abused its
discretion because the evidence presented with her motion to reopen was not
cumulative. In addition, Medrano maintains that the BIA erred in determin-
ing that she had failed to establish her membership in a particular social
group, given that Torres continued to threaten her and still expressed a belief
that Medrano belonged to him.
Because Medrano’s petition for review was timely only as to the denial
of the motion for reconsideration, that is the only ruling properly before this
court. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006); Navarro-
Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003). For the BIA to grant a
motion to reconsider, an alien must “identify a change in the law, a misappli-
cation of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked.” Chambers
v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008). We review the denial of a motion
for reconsideration “under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.”
Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016).
Case: 19-60183 Document: 00515306350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2020

No. 19-60183
3
To the extent that Medrano is challenging the original determination
that she was not eligible for asylum because she failed to show her membership
in a particular social group, we lack jurisdiction because Medrano did not file
a timely petition for review from that ruling. See Guevara, 450 F.3d at 176.
With respect to her challenge to the BIA’s failure to reconsider the denial of
the motion to reopen, Medrano has not established that the BIA’s finding that
the new evidence presented was cumulative was “capricious, irrational, [or]
utterly without foundation in the evidence.” Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions,
877 F.3d 223, 227 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
If Medrano’s claims are read as an assertion that the BIA failed to con-
sider the fact that Torres’s gang membership affected the determination that
she had left the relationship, a claim that the BIA overlooked an aspect of the
case is proper in a motion for reconsideration. See Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448.
But Medrano has not shown that a failure to focus on Torres’s subjective belief
of a continuing relationship, as distinguished from his physical departure from
the home he shared with Medrano, was irrational or without foundation in the
evidence. See Mendias-Mendoza, 877 F.3d at 227.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of
jurisdiction and DENIED in part.
Case: 19-60183 Document: 00515306350 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2020