Maira Yohana Flores-Zuniga v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 21-13687 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13687 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MAIRA YOHANA FLORES-ZUNIGA, EYMI ORDONEZ-FLORES, SOFIA ORDONEZ-FLORES, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. USCA11 Case: 21-13687 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 21-13687 ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A212-909-286 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Maira Flores-Zuniga,1 a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order denying her motion for remand and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of re- moval, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). First, she contends that the BIA and the IJ er- roneously denied her petitions for asylum and withholding of re- moval given what she contends is substantial evidence to the con- trary. Second, she argues that the BIA and IJ erred in denying her CAT claim because, she says, the record compels the conclusion that she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Hon- duran authorities if she returns. Third, she argues that the BIA abused its discretion in not remanding this case to the IJ in light of 1Flores-Zuniga’s petition for review is filed on behalf of herself and Sofia and Eymi Ordonez-Flores, her minor children and derivate asylum applicants. USCA11 Case: 21-13687 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 3 of 11 21-13687 Opinion of the Court 3 the Attorney General’s vacatur of Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“Matter of A-B- I”), in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“Matter of A-B- III”). After careful consider- ation of the claims, we deny the petition. I Flores-Zuniga argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of her asylum claim. The Attorney General may grant asy- lum to a non-citizen who meets the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) definition of a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is defined as: any person who is outside any country of such per- son’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail him- self or herself of the protection of, that country be- cause of persecution or a well-founded fear of perse- cution on account of race, religion, nationality, mem- bership in a particular social group, or political opin- ion. Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The applicant bears the burden of proving that she is a refugee. Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). As relevant to us, the appli- cant must demonstrate that she (1) was persecuted in the past be- cause of a protected ground or (2) has a well-founded fear that she will be persecuted in the future because of a protected ground. Ro- driguez …

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