NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0376n.06 No. 18-3903 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 24, 2019 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk NOHE LORENZANA-MONTEPEQUE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) A FINAL ORDER OF THE v. ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) ) Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Nohe Lorenzana-Montepeque and her minor son (who is a rider on her asylum application) are citizens of Guatemala. They came to the United States in May 2016, seeking to escape individuals who extorted their family for money in Guatemala. But the harm experienced by Lorenzana-Montepeque was not, as required by law, on account of her membership in a particular social group. Lorenzana-Montepeque argues differently and puts forth “Guatemalan taxi owners closely related to individuals who have paid ransom before” as a putative social group. No facts compel us to reach a different conclusion from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) or the immigration judge (“IJ”), and this court’s precedent otherwise forecloses her argument. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Lorenzana-Montepeque and her son arrived in the United States from Guatemala on about May 2, 2016. See A.R. at 408 (Notice to Appear). Lorenzana-Montepeque admitted the No. 18-3903, Lorenzana-Montepeque v. Barr allegations in the Notice to Appear, conceded removability, and filed an I-589 Application for Asylum, listing her son as a rider on the application. See A.R. at 50–51 (July 14, 2016 Hr’g Tr.); A.R. at 349–63 (I-589 Application); A.R. at 439–49 (Rider Application). On her application, she stated that she was seeking asylum and withholding of removal on the basis of membership in a particular social group, as well as other reasons not relevant here. A.R. at 353 (I-589 Application). Lorenzana-Montepeque’s understandable fear of returning to Guatemala stems from two incidents of extortion—one directly involving her immediate family in 2014, and another involving her sister in 2013. Both incidents are relevant to her argument before this court. In February 2014, individuals began calling Lorenzana-Montepeque’s husband and demanding 25,000 quetzals (over $3,200). A.R. at 104–05, 117, 122 (Removal Hr’g Tr.). Lorenzana-Montepeque never spoke to these individuals herself, and they never identified themselves. Id. at 104–05. These individuals threatened to kidnap Lorenzana-Montepeque’s oldest daughter if the family did not pay. Id. at 105. After six or seven days of phone calls, Lorenzana-Montepeque and her husband decided to pay. Id. at 117. They sold their taxi for 15,000 quetzals and borrowed the remainder as a loan from a man named Jeremias. Id. at 109–10. The family never reported this incident to the police because they feared that the individuals demanding the money would kill them. Id. at 107. Lorenzana-Montepeque admitted that she did not know why these extortion demands came to her or her family. Id. at 108. Prior to this incident, Lorenzana-Montepeque’s sister and mother were also subjected to extortion demands in August 2013. At ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals