The opinion
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 1 of 10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-11483
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SENIA YAMILETH MATUTE-RIVERA,
SOFIA NICOLLE VALLADARES-MATUTE,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206-693-562
____________________
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 2 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 25-11483
Senia Matute-Rivera and her daughter, Sofia, 1 petition this
Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“CAT”). Specifically, the BIA determined that the
petitioners waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that they
did not establish that the Honduran government was unwilling or
unable to protect Matute-Rivera. 2 Matute-Rivera argues that the
BIA erred in concluding that she waived this issue because she
argued that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in analyzing her
asylum and withholding of removal claim based on her
membership in a particular social group, which was sufficient to
implicitly challenge the IJ’s determination that she had not shown
that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect
her. After careful review, we deny the petition for review.
I. Background
Matute-Rivera and her then-minor-daughter, natives and
citizens of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection
in April 2014. At that time, the Department of Homeland Security
1 Sofia is a derivative beneficiary of her mother’s asylum claim.
2 The BIA also concluded that the petitioners waived any challenge to the IJ’s
determination that they were ineligible for CAT relief. However, Matute-
Rivera does not challenge that determination in her petition for review.
Accordingly, we do not address it.
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 3 of 10
25-11483 Opinion of the Court 3
issued them notices to appear (“NTA”), charging them with being
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being present in
the United States without being admitted or paroled. At a hearing
before the IJ, Matute-Rivera conceded that she and her daughter
were removable and indicated that she would be filing an
application for asylum.
Matute-Rivera thereafter filed an application seeking
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on political
opinion and membership in a particular social group. She alleged
that the father of her children physically and emotionally abused
her and that she feared he would harm her if she returned to
Honduras. In a supporting statement, Matute-Rivera stated that
Gerson Valladares was the father of her two children. He became
physically abusive when she confronted him about him seeing
another woman. He abused her multiple times, but she did not
report the abuse to the Honduran police because she was afraid
that he would take the children and then kill her. She decided to
come to the United States because “he wanted to have two women
and [she] did not accept that.” He threatened to kill her if he found
her with another man. She secretly left Honduras with their
daughter and left their son with another family member in
Honduras. Valladares threatened to “take revenge” if she returned
to Honduras. Their son now lives with Valladares and “the other
woman,” and Valladares physically abuses him and does not allow
him to communicate with Matute-Rivera.
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 4 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 25-11483
At the hearing before the IJ on her asylum application,
Matute-Rivera’s counsel clarified that the basis for the political
opinion ground was “the opinion of being against violence against
women,” and the claimed social group was a “mother of a son and
daughter.” Matute-Rivera testified that she and Valladares were
never married, and he was the father of her daughter Sofia and son
Gerson.3 She explained that she left Honduras in 2014 because
Valladares began physically abusing her after she became pregnant
with their son in 2012. At times he threatened to kill her, and she
feared for her life. She confirmed that she never went to the police
because she thought it would make things worse and that he might
kill her. She feared returning to Honduras because Valladares had
threatened to take revenge on her for leaving with their daughter
if she returned.
The IJ found Matute-Rivera’s testimony to be credible.
However, the IJ found that nothing in the record suggested that
Matute-Rivera’s partner abused her due to her actual or imputed
political opinion.
Turning to her alleged membership in a particular social
group of a “mother of a son and daughter,” the IJ determined that
this particular social group was not defined with particularity and
was therefore not a cognizable social group. Additionally, the IJ
concluded that Matute-Rivera had failed to establish that the
Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect her
3 Matute-Rivera had another son by another man while living in the United
States.
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 5 of 10
25-11483 Opinion of the Court 5
from these private acts of violence, citing Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N.
Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). Accordingly, the IJ concluded that Matute-
Rivera was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal relief
based on membership in a particular social group. Finally, the IJ
also found that she failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief.
Matute-Rivera, through counsel, appealed to the BIA,
stating in her notice of appeal that she “presented a plausible
political asylum based case,” and that she “believe[d] the
immigration judge erred in not granting relief.” In her brief to the
BIA, she argued that the IJ erred in finding no cognizable particular
social group as to her claims for asylum and withholding of
removal. Specifically, she argued that when the IJ denied her
application, he relied on the then-governing legal standard set forth
in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“A-B- I”)
and Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- II”), which
had overruled Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).
However, Matute-Rivera explained that, since the IJ’s decision, the
then-Attorney General in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G.
2021) (“A-B-III”), had vacated A-B-I and A-B-II and reinstated Matter
of A-R-C-G-. 4 And she maintained that, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the
BIA had “recogniz[ed] as a valid particular social group women
who have suffered acts of violence by their partner and who are
4 We note that a few months after the BIA issued its decision, the current
Attorney General overruled A-B-III, and Matter of A-R-C-G-, and reinstated the
framework in A-B-I and A-B-II. See Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I. & N. Dec. 207, 207
(A.G. 2025).
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 6 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 25-11483
unable to leave their relationships.” Accordingly, Matute-Rivera
argued that she qualified for a particular social group based on the
reinstated Matter of A-R-C-G- decision, and that given the change in
the law, the BIA or the IJ needed to reevaluate the determination
that she did not allege a cognizable social group. Matute-Rivera
did not address the IJ’s determination that she had not shown that
the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect
her. 5
The BIA dismissed her appeal on the ground that she failed
to “meaningfully challenge the [IJ’s] determination[] that [she] did
not establish . . . that the Honduran government was unwilling or
unable to protect her.” Thus, the BIA determined that Matute-
Rivera waived this issue, and, therefore, had not met her burden of
establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
Finally, the BIA declined to remand the proceedings based on the
intervening change in law identified by Matute-Rivera because that
change in law did “not affect [her] waiver of the [IJ’s] determination
regarding whether the Honduran government was unwilling or
unable to protect [her].” Petitioners filed a timely petition for
review with this Court.
5 We note that, even under Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent had to
demonstrate that the government was unwilling or unable to control the
private actor. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 395. Thus, regardless
of which precedent applied, in order to prevail on her asylum claim, Matute-
Rivera had to demonstrate that the Honduran government was unable or
unwilling to protect her.
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 7 of 10
25-11483 Opinion of the Court 7
II. Discussion
Matute-Rivera argues that the BIA erred in concluding that
she waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that she had not
shown that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to
protect her because she argued that the IJ applied the wrong legal
standard in analyzing her asylum and withholding of removal
claim based on membership in a particular social group, which was
sufficient to implicitly challenge the IJ’s government protection
determination.
“Generally, [we] review[] only the BIA’s decision, except to
the extent the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion or agreed with
the IJ’s reasoning.” Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 984 F.3d 982, 988
(11th Cir. 2020).
“The BIA has discretion to summarily dismiss claims where
the record clearly indicates that the applicant has waived her right
to appeal.” Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1144 (11th Cir.
2010). We review the BIA’s determination that the petitioner
waived an issue for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1145. To determine
whether the BIA abused its discretion, we examine “whether the
BIA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in making [its waiver]
determination.” Id.
“Generally, when an appellant fails to offer argument on an
issue, that issue is deemed abandoned.” Id. In the immigration
context, “[i]n order to avoid a waiver of appeal, the [petitioner’s]
Notice of Appeal or any attachments thereto must specifically
identify the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, or both, that
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 8 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 25-11483
are being challenged.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b)). “If a
question of law is presented, supporting authority must be cited. If
the dispute is over the findings of fact, the specific facts contested
must be identified.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b).
As part of the burden of establishing asylum eligibility, an
applicant “must show not only past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution [on account of a protected ground], but
also that she is unable to avail herself of the protection of her home
country.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th Cir.
2007); Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 950 (11th Cir. 2010)
(“An applicant for asylum who alleges persecution by a private
actor must prove that [her] home country is unable or unwilling to
protect [her] because [t]he statutes governing asylum and
withholding of removal protect . . . against persecution by non-
governmental groups that the government cannot control.”
(quotations omitted)).
Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining
that Matute-Rivera waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination
that she failed to show that the Honduran government was
unwilling or unable to protect her. In order to prevail on her
asylum or withholding or removal claim, Matute-Rivera had to
show not only persecution on account of her membership in a
particular social group, but also that she was “unable to avail
herself of the protection of [Honduras].” Lopez, 504 F.3d at 1345;
Ayala, 605 F.3d at 950. The IJ determined that she failed to
demonstrate either requirement. However, on appeal to the BIA,
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 9 of 10
25-11483 Opinion of the Court 9
Matute-Rivera addressed only the IJ’s finding that she failed to
establish a cognizable particular social group. She did not address
the additional requirement that, even if she established that she
was a member of a particular social group, she must demonstrate
that she was unable to avail herself of the protection of the
Honduran government. While we agree that hyper-technical or
perfectly labeled arguments are not required to preserve issues,
Matute-Rivera’s argument to the BIA—that the law had changed
rendering the IJ’s determination that she failed to establish a
cognizable social group erroneous—was not sufficient to preserve
a challenge to the IJ’s government protection determination.
Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining
that she waived this issue, which necessarily precluded her from
establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.6
Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1144–45; Lopez, 504 F.3d at 1345; Ayala, 605 F.3d
at 950.
6 Matute-Rivera also argues that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration
to her claim by failing to address the merits of her claim under the correct legal
framework and that remand is warranted so that her asylum claim can be
properly considered under the restored Matter of A-R-C-G- framework. We
disagree. The BIA gave reasoned consideration to Matute-Rivera’s claim, and
relied on well-established principles of waiver in determining that it need not
reach the merits and that a remand was not warranted. See Jathursan v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021) (“To determine whether the
Board gave reasoned consideration to a petition, we inquire only whether the
Board considered the issues raised and announced its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought
and not merely reacted.” (quotations omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 25-11483 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2026 Page: 10 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 25-11483
For the above reasons, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.