17-3466 Vasquez-Ramos v. Barr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of November, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARTHA LUZ VASQUEZ-RAMOS, JOHAN HASSEL DIAZ-VASQUEZ, JUSTIN GEOVANY DIAZ-VASQUEZ, Petitioners, v. 17-3466 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Hamdan Qudah, Esq., Paterson, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel; Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Martha Luz Vasquez-Ramos, Johan Hassel Diaz- Vasquez, Justin Geovany Diaz-Vasquez, natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of a September 25, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a March 20, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Martha Luz Vasquez-Ramos, Johan Hassel Diaz-Vasquez, Justin Geovany Diaz-Vasquez, No. A 206 885 839/840/841 (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 885 839/840/841 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). Vasquez-Ramos claimed 2 asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group, which she defined as Honduran single mothers who are business owners in Campo Sol with municipally issued business permits. The agency did not err in finding that this proposed social group was not socially distinct, and that Vasquez-Ramos did not show that the harm she suffered was on account of her membership in the proposed group. To demonstrate her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, Vasquez-Ramos had to “establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or w[ould] be at least one central reason for” her persecution. 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals