Corvera v. Garland, No. 23-60563 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-60563 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 6, 2024 No. 23-60563 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Brenda Lisset Corvera, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, ______________________________ Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206 342 236 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Brenda Lisset Corvera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying her request for administrative closure and affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her request for withholding of removal. We review the BIA’s opinion and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 23-60563 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 No. 23-60563 influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s decision concerning withholding is reviewed for substantial evidence, we will not disturb it unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Corvera has not met this standard. She fails to brief, and thus abandons, any challenge she may have had to the BIA’s past persecution determination. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Her challenge to the BIA’s rejection of her proposed particular social groups (“PSGs”) and its concomitant rejection of her future persecution claim fails because she cites no evidence to support her assertion that her proposed PSGs are viable. She has thus not shown that the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on this issue. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Her challenge to the denial of administrative closure likewise fails. We review the BIA’s decision on a request for administrative closure for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 208–09 (5th Cir. 2017). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” NavarreteLopez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 951, 953 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Corvera sought administrative closure so that she could pursue a provisional unlawful presence waiver, but she had not obtained the approved visa petition that is a prerequisite of the waiver, nor had she shown that she is likely to obtain the petition or waiver within a reasonable time. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(3)(iv)(A), (e)(4)(iii). Consequently, she has shown no abuse of discretion in connection with the denial of this request. See HernandezCastillo, 875 F.3d at 208–09; Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (BIA 2012). The petition for review is DENIED. 2
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.
