Sandra Felix-Marroquin v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 21-12162 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12162

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

SANDRA FELIX-MARROQUIN,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206-623-619

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12162 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12162

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Felix-Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

seeks review of the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s denial of her asy-

lum and withholding-of-removal application. 1 She sought asylum

based on her membership in three particular social groups: (1) Gua-

temalan girls who are abused solely because of their gender,

(2) Guatemalan girls viewed as property solely because of their

gender, and (3) relatives of victims of international criminal vio-

lence. In particular, an individual raped Felix-Marroquin, and after

her family reported the rape to the police, the same attacker also

raped her sister. Additionally, gang members killed her father

when he refused to join their gang, and they later killed her uncle

as well. Following her uncle’s death, Felix-Marroquin fled to the

United States and applied for asylum. The attacker has not con-

tacted Felix-Marroquin since the rapes occurred more than a dec-

ade ago.

To obtain asylum, an applicant must establish past persecu-

tion or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a

protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group.

1 Before the BIA, Felix-Marroquin didn’t challenge the IJ’s decision to deny her

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, we lack ju-

risdiction to review that claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v.

U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

USCA11 Case: 21-12162 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 Page: 3 of 4

21-12162 Opinion of the Court 3

Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam). The BIA concluded that the IJ did not clearly err in

determining that Felix-Marroquin’s rape was a crime of oppor-

tunity rather than persecution on account of a statutorily protected

ground. For that reason, the BIA determined, Felix-Marroquin

failed to “establish a nexus between the past persecution she suf-

fered and any of her proposed particular social groups.”

Before us, Felix-Marroquin offers no argument that the BIA

erred in concluding no nexus existed between her persecution and

a statutorily protected ground. She asserts only that the IJ erred in

finding that the harm she suffered was a crime of opportunity, but

she presents no argument in support of that statement, cites no

law, and reiterates the facts without additional explanation. We

have explained that when a petitioner fails to offer argument on an

issue in her brief, she abandons that issue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). So under the cir-

cumstances here, we must conclude that Felix-Marroquin aban-

doned the nexus issue. 2

Given that Felix-Marroquin failed to establish that she was

persecuted on account of a protected ground, she doesn’t qualify

for humanitarian asylum or withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (requiring past persecution on account of a

2 Because Felix-Marroquin failed to establish a nexus between her harm and

her proposed particular social groups, we don’t address whether those groups

are cognizable.

USCA11 Case: 21-12162 Date Filed: 06/09/2022 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 21-12162

protected ground for a grant of humanitarian asylum); Lin v. U.S.

Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1317 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the

standard applicable to withholding-of-removal claims is more strin-

gent than that applicable to asylum claims). Accordingly, we deny

Felix-Marroquin’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.