Chavez v. Blanche

── Chavez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: Immigration Case: 25-60647 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-60647 FILED June 1, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Nataly Dayana Chavez; Andrea Elizabeth Soto-Chavez; Jose Salvador Soto Chavez, Petitioners, versus Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A205 724 872, A205 724 873, A205 724 874 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Nataly Dayana Chavez and her two children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from order of Immigration Judge (IJ) denying _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-60647 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 No. 25-60647 her application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 Petitioners also challenge the BIA’s conclusion that their belated objections to defective Notices to Appear (“NTA”) were forfeited, and its denial of Petitioners’ motion to administratively close removal proceedings based on Ms. Chavez’s pending U-visa petition. We begin with Petitioners’ challenge to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. “We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA.” Agustin-Matias v. Garland, 48 F.4th 600, 601 (5th Cir. 2022). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and we may not disturb an immigration court’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Martinez–Martinez v. Holder, 769 F.3d 897, 899 (5th Cir. 2014). To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding, an applicant must show persecution on account of a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group (“PSG”). Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401, 406– 07 (5th Cir. 2021). Persecution is a “sustained, systematic effort to target an individual on the basis of a protected ground,” and it “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457, 465–66 (5th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, “[t]he protected _____________________ 1 Ms. Chavez named her minor children, Andrea Elizabeth Soto-Chavez and Jose Salvador Soto-Chavez, as a derivative beneficiaries in her asylum application. Ms. Chavez also applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). However, she does not challenge the denial of CAT relief on appeal, so it is forfeited. Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022). And because her min