NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0215n.06 No. 21-3883 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED CANDELARIA RAFAEL-BAUTISTA; ERIKA ) Jun 01, 2022 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ANAHI TERCERO-RAFAEL, ) Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE BOARD OF v. ) ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; KETHLEDGE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Candelaria Rafael-Bautista and her minor daughter petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Rafael-Bautista and her daughter are citizens of Guatemala. They left Guatemala because Rafael-Bautista’s estranged partner, Marcos Tercero-Antonio, had hit her and because her daughter was sick. In April 2014, they entered the United States without inspection; the government thereafter initiated removal proceedings. The immigration judge denied their applications for relief and the Board affirmed. This petition for review followed. When the Board issues its own opinion rather than simply affirming the immigration judge’s decision, “we review the [Board]’s decision as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. No. 21-3883, Rafael-Bautista, et al. v. Garland Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We review legal questions de novo and uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667, 670 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Our jurisdiction extends only to “claims properly presented to the [Board] and considered on their merits.” Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). Rafael-Bautista argues that the Board erred when it denied her claim for withholding of removal. To qualify for that relief, Rafael-Bautista must show that, if she returns to Guatemala, she will “more likely than not” be persecuted “on account of” her membership in a “particular social group.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). The group to which Rafael-Bautista says she belongs is that of “women in Guatemala who cannot leave domestic relationships.” Although threatened “retribution solely over personal matters” is insufficient to secure withholding of removal, a petitioner can prevail if she identifies a “broader societal significance intertwined with the personal retribution.” Kamar v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 811, 818 (6th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). But we “cannot simply presume that persecution is on account of a statutory ground.” Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 997 (6th Cir. 2009). Here, Rafael-Bautista testified that Tercero-Antonio threatened to kill her in 2017, and she provided news reports that intrafamilial violence against women is common in Guatemala. But the record lacks evidence that her former partner made this threat because she is a woman who cannot leave a domestic relationship. Rafael-Bautista in fact left the relationship—she and Tercero-Antonio separated in 2011 and lived in separate homes in the same village for three years. Although he tried to hit her once during that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals