NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3406 _____________ MARINA LOPEZ-BONILLA; F.F.F.-L. (MINOR CHILD), Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A208-380-773 Agency No. A208-380-774) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 12, 2018 Before: McKEE, VANASKIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: March 20, 2019) _________ OPINION * _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 McKEE, Circuit Judge. Marina Lopez-Bonilla and F.F.F.-L. (her minor child), natives of Honduras, petition for review of a final order of removal entered against them by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition for review. 1 I. To be granted asylum, one must prove that s/he is a “refugee” as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. A refugee is there defined as one who: (1) is being persecuted based on their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;” and (2) can establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to their country of nationality. 2 The applicant bears the burden of proof in establishing refugee status. Petitioners sought to establish persecution on the basis of their membership in the Fredys Lopez-Hernandez family. The IJ agreed that, for the purposes of refugee status, the “nuclear family of Fredys Lopez-Hernandez” qualifies as a particular social group. 1 The BIA had jurisdiction pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our standard of review of the BIA’s legal conclusions is de novo. Escobar v. Gonzales, 417 F. 3d 363, 365 (3d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA adopted the findings of the IJ and made additional findings, we will review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Escobar v. Gonzales, 417 F. 3d 363, 365 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Wang v. Ashcroft, 368 F. 3d 347, 349 (3d Cir. 2004)). 2 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). 2 But, the IJ correctly concluded that Petitioners did not qualify for asylum because they failed to establish that a nexus between the social group and the alleged persecution. The IJ determined that the alleged persecution was nothing more than generalized criminality and violence. In addition, none of the threats the Petitioners received resulted in physical harm. Although a threat may constitute persecution, we have “refused to extend asylum protection for threats that, while sinister and credible in nature, were not highly imminent or concrete or failed to result in any physical violence or harm.” 3 Consequently, these threats failed to rise to the level of persecution. II. For the same reasons that Petitioners’ proof failed to establish ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals