United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1678 ___________________________ Teresa C. Martinez-Matute; N.A.O.M.; J.D.O.M. lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2022 Filed: May 5, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Teresa Consuelo Martinez-Matute (Martinez) and her two sons, both of whom were minors at the time of the removal proceedings, petition for review of the final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). They do not dispute that they are removable from the United States for entering the country without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Instead, they challenge the Board’s conclusion that they failed to meet their burden of proof to sustain their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review. I. Background Martinez and her two sons (collectively, “petitioners”) are natives and citizens of Honduras, who entered the United States without inspection on or about September 5, 2015. The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear (NTA) for each petitioner, charging them with inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as a non-citizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The petitioners admitted the factual allegations in their respective NTAs and conceded the charge of inadmissibility. Martinez submitted an application for asylum and withholding of removal, by which she also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Martinez named her two minor sons as derivatives on her application. Her eldest son, however, subsequently submitted an independent application after testimony was taken. The petitioners sought asylum and withholding of removal based on their membership in a proposed particular social group defined as “Immediate Family Members of People who had an affair (or allegedly had an affair) with a Cartel/Gang members [sic] girlfriend or wife.” A.R. at 201; see also id. at 69 (“[T]he [petitioners’] asylum claim is based on their fear of being harmed or killed by Valle, who they say is the leader or ‘boss’ of the chirinos gang. They contend that they are members of the particular social group of ‘family members whose father or husband may have had an affair with a gang leader.’”). Martinez and her eldest son testified in support of their claims. According to their testimony, Martinez’s husband and her sons’ father, Hector, was murdered on July 14, 2015. The petitioners claimed that the leader of the local gang, Valle, shot and killed Hector because Hector was rumored to be having an affair with Valle’s -2- wife, Marie. Hector received a phone call from Marie, warning him that Valle was going to kill him. Martinez and her eldest son testified that Valle’s son started this rumor because he was jealous of Martinez’s eldest son. The son and Hector met with Valle in January 2015 to resolve the misunderstanding. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals