Appellate Case: 20-9614 Document: 010110710905 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MERCEDES VIDANA VIDANA, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9614 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Mercedes Vidana Vidana filed applications for asylum, restriction on removal,1 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Restriction on removal used to be called “withholding of removal.” Neri-Garcia v. Holder, 696 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellate Case: 20-9614 Document: 010110710905 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 2 dismissed her appeal of the IJ’s order. She now seeks review of the BIA’s order. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review. BACKGROUND Petitioner first entered the United States illegally in 1999, without inspection. About twenty years later, she returned to Mexico with her United States citizen husband for a consular interview based on a visa application he had filed on her behalf. At the interview, she admitted she and her husband had paid a smuggler for her and her son to cross into the United States. As a result, the officer told her she would need to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility. After the interview, Petitioner spoke to a person who said he was an attorney associated with the hotel in Juarez, Mexico, where she and her husband were staying. They gave him a $10,000 fee and documentation he said he needed to file the waiver application. Petitioner’s husband returned to the United States, and she went to Vera Cruz, Mexico to visit her mother. While there, cartel members who had previously threatened to kill her if she did not pay $50,000 ransom for her son saw her arrive and left a note demanding the money. She went back to the hotel in Juarez to wait for the waiver. The cartel returned to the mother’s house twice to look for Petitioner. Petitioner did not report these events to Mexican law enforcement. When Petitioner asked hotel representatives for a receipt for the waiver application, she learned that the hotel was associated with a cartel (a different cartel than the one that attempted to extort her in Vera Cruz), that no …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals