Fatima Torres-Carranza v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-2852 ____________ FATIMA CECILIA TORRES-CARRANZA; F. B. Z.-T.; M. M. T-.C., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board Nos. A209-343-491, A209-343-493 and A209-343-494) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 16, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 18, 2022) ____________ OPINION* ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. After witnessing her father’s murder by an alleged gang, Salvadoran citizen and native Fatima Cecilia Torres-Carranza, along with her two children, entered the United States. The Department of Homeland Security charged her as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and it concluded that Torres-Carranza waived her application for CAT protection by failing to address the claim in her appeal. Torres-Carranza now seeks review of the BIA’s decision.1 We will deny the petition for review.2 Torres-Carranza argues she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in two particular social groups: family membership and “civilian witnesses who offer assistance to law enforcement against violent crimes that threaten El Salvadoran society” (Salvadoran civilian witness).3 To be eligible for asylum, 1 Torres-Carranza challenges only the BIA’s asylum and withholding of removal decisions. She does not now attempt to revive her CAT claim. 2 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We may also review the IJ’s decision to the extent the BIA adopted, affirmed, or relied upon it. Guzman Orellana v. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 171, 177 (3d Cir. 2020). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual conclusions for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, we must defer to the agency’s factual findings so long as they are supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole.” Id. 3 App. 4; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 2 an applicant must show that she “is unable or unwilling to return to . . . [her] country” because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”4 A critical step for the asylum seeker “is to show a sufficient ‘nexus’ between persecution and one of the listed protected grounds.”5 “Persecution is on account of a protected ground only if that ground ‘was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.’”6 Torres-Carranza first challenges the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to …

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