NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 16-3908 ________________ HERNAN DARIO HURTADO; JANET GOMEZ-PARA, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A098-365-240 and A098-365-241) Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy ________________ Argued on October 3, 2017 Before: MCKEE, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 2, 2018) Joseph C. Hohenstein [ARGUED] Landau Hess Simon & Choi 190 North Independence Mall West Suite 602 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Petitioners Ashley Huebner [ARGUED] Charles Roth Lisa Koop National Immigration Justice Center 208 South LaSalle Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Counsel for Amicus-Petitioners Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General Alison R. Drucker, Senior Litigation Counsel Aimee J. Carmichael, Senior Litigation Counsel Susan B. Green [ARGUED] Jem C. Sponzo United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ________________ OPINION* ________________ ROTH, Circuit Judge To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien must establish that he or she is a “refugee” under the Act.1 In relevant part, such an alien must show “persecution or a well-founded fear of * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). 2 persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”2 Hernan Dario Hurtado and his wife Janet Gomez Parra (Petitioners) seek relief as members of “a particular social group” subjected to persecution in Colombia. The proposed group to which they belong consists of “architect[s]/engineer[s] and project manage[rs] . . . forced to provide FARC with jobs, materials, and/or money and [who are] no longer able to meet FARC’s demands.”3 On appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Petitioners did not meet a central prerequisite for “a particular social group,” namely, “social distinction.” To satisfy that requirement, a proposed group must be perceived by “the people of a given society . . . as sufficiently separate or distinct.”4 Petitioners seek review of the BIA’s decision. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will deny the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Petitioners entered the United States in 2003 as visitors authorized to remain in the country until June 2004. In April 2004, Petitioners applied for asylum and withholding of removal. Approximately four months later, they were each charged with removability 2 Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 3 App. 23. 4 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 241 (BIA 2014). 3 under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) and received a Notice to Appear before an Immigration Judge (IJ). At a December 2006 hearing, Petitioners testified before an IJ in support of their applications. Petitioner ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals