NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 22-1594 ________________ GOLDIN DEL PILAR HERRERA-GARCIA; E.G.H., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A208-689-119; A208-689-120) ________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 7, 2022 ________________ Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 16, 2022) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Goldin Del Pilar Herrera-Garcia (“Herrera-Garcia”) and her minor son appeal the denial of their request for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) found no connection between the alleged persecution and her proposed social groups, and insufficient evidence that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. The BIA also found the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) did not abuse her discretion by declining to allow Herrera-Garcia’s untimely exhibits. Finding no legal error in those conclusions, we must deny the petition for review. I. Herrera-Garcia and her son arrived in the United States from Honduras seeking asylum. Herrera-Garcia claimed they fled an alleged gang member named Jario Santos who started harassing her with threats of violence after her husband’s death. Herrera- Garcia acknowledges she did not report these threats to the police, citing the cost of filing a report and her belief that authorities would not investigate her claim. Herrera-Garcia and her son were charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Herrera-Garcia applied for asylum and withholding of removal.1 In the months leading up to her hearing, Herrera-Garcia received several opportunities to submit additional evidence, but did not. On the day of the hearing, Herrera-Garcia offered new 1 The asylum statute makes provisions for derivative beneficiaries, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), while the withholding statute does not, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). No separate claims are made for her son, and her claims fail under either theory. Herrera- Garcia also raised a claim under the Convention Against Torture, but she did not challenge the IJ’s decision before the BIA and does not discuss the claim in this appeal. 2 affidavits, which the IJ excluded as untimely. On appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decisions, concluding that Herrera-Garcia had not proven the threats related to her membership in a particular social group, or that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to assist. The BIA also upheld the IJ’s decision to reject the late-filed affidavits, finding no abuse of discretion or prejudice to Herrera-Garcia. Herrera-Garcia now appeals and we will deny the petition for review.2 II. A. Asylum and withholding of removal require the applicant to show past persecution, or likely future persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum); 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of removal). “[A]n applicant for asylum or withholding of removal seeking relief based on ‘membership …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals