Baigalmaa Batsukh v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BAIGALMAA BATSUKH, et al., No. 14-74005 Petitioners Agency Nos. A88-492-754, A88- v. 492-755, A88-492-756 JEFFERSON SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 12, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, ** District Judge. The Petitioners in this case—the lead Petitioner, Baigalmaa Batsukh; her husband, Tumbayar Vanchidgorj; and their minor daughter, Nandingarav Tumbayar—are all citizens of Mongolia. Batsukh was employed at a bank in Mongolia. In the course of her job, Batsukh denied a loan to the Geegan Trade * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 1 Company, which was connected to a prominent local businessman and politician named Bataa. After Batsukh denied the loan, her husband Tumbayar was abducted and beaten by Bataa’s associates and subsequently received threatening phone calls. Batsukh took a leave of absence from the bank to care for Tumbayar and, in her absence, the loan to Geegan Trade Company was approved. The Petitioners first came to the United States in June 2002 on visitor’s visas. In November 2002, Batsukh and her daughter returned to Mongolia, but Tumbayar remained in the United States because he was afraid to return. When Batsukh returned to Mongolia, she was assigned to collect on the loan to the Geegan Trade Company. Batsukh threatened to expose a fraud connected to the loan, and in response Bataa threatened her and she was later run down by a car. Batsukh continued to receive threatening phone calls from Bataa’s associates while she remained in Mongolia. In May 2005, Batsukh and her daughter returned to the United States on visitor’s visas. Batsukh and her daughter remained in the United States illegally after their visas expired. Between 2005 and 2010, Batsukh’s father and brother continued to receive threatening phone calls from Bataa’s associates. In 2010, Batsukh’s brother moved, but continued to receive threatening phone calls at his new residence. 2 In March 2010, Batsukh filed an application for asylum, listing Tumbayar and their daughter as derivative applicants. DHS served all three Petitioners with a notice of intent to remove. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). The Petitioners appeared before an immigration judge and conceded removability, but sought asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge denied the asylum claims as time-barred, granted withholding of removal to Tumbayar and the daughter, and denied withholding of removal to Batsukh. The BIA affirmed the denial of the asylum applications, but granted Batsukh withholding of removal.1 This petition for review followed and challenges the BIA’s ruling with respect to the asylum applications.2 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s rulings concerning the timeliness of Petitioners’ ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals