NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 20-1796 __________ TERESA DEL ROSARIO PEREZ-FRANCO; X. P. F., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA __________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-633-288) Immigration Judge: Dinesh C. Verma __________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 30, 2021 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: October 1, 2021) __________ OPINION* __________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Teresa Perez-Franco and her minor daughter X.P.F., non-citizens from Guatemala, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of their application for asylum and for withholding of removal.1 For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition. I. DISCUSSION2 As relevant to our decision today, Petitioner raises two arguments: that the BIA erred in dismissing her asylum claim as untimely and that it erroneously affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that her proposed particular social group (“PSG”) of “single mothers from Guatemala without male protection” was not cognizable.3 Pet’r’s Br. 10. Neither is persuasive. 1 Because Perez-Franco is applying for relief on behalf of both herself and her minor daughter, our use of the term “Petitioner” refers to both applicants. 2 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b), 1208.31(e), and 1240.15, and we exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Where, as here, “the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decisions and orders as well as [conducted] an independent analysis, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions and orders,” Ordonez-Tevalan v. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 331, 340–41 (3d Cir. 2016), and look to the IJ’s opinion “only where the BIA has substantially relied on that opinion,” Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 2009). We review legal conclusions de novo, Doe v. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2020), and defer to factual findings “if they are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record considered as a whole,” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 2018). 3 Because we will affirm the BIA’s decision to dismiss Petitioner’s asylum claim as untimely, we do not reach a third argument raised by Petitioner: that the BIA erred in rejecting her asylum claim for lack of corroborating evidence. In addition, rather inexplicably, Perez-Franco does not challenge the BIA’s determination: (i) that a defective notice to appear (“NTA”) did not preclude the immigration judge’s jurisdiction, see Pereira 2 First, Perez-Franco contends that the BIA erred in determining that her asylum application was untimely because, although it was not filed within one year of her arrival in the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), “extraordinary circumstances” excuse her delay, id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Specifically, she argues that she could not file her asylum application until the Government issued her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals