Gavidia-Jovel v. Bondi

Case: 25-60138 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

____________

FILED November 21, 2025

No. 25-60138

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Lidni Abihail Gavidia-Jovel; Anna Liz Garbahay- Gavidia,

Petitioners, versus

Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A208 748 596, A208 748 597

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Lidni Abihail Gavidia-Joel and her daughter Anna Liz Garbahay- Gavidia, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from a Case: 25-60138 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2025

No. 25-60138 decision of an Immigration Judge ordering them removed and denying their application for relief.

Gavidia-Joel challenges only the denial of her application for humanitarian asylum, asserting that she was entitled to that relief because she had suffered repeated sexual abuse at the hands of her grandfather. By failing to present any argument concerning general asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, Gavidia-Joel has waived any such challenges. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022).

We review the denial of humanitarian asylum for substantial evidence. Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 437, 441 (5th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to this standard, this court may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).

Because Gavidia-Joel makes no argument that she suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground, she fails to demonstrate that the BIA erred in determining she was not entitled to humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED.