NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0631n.06 No. 17-3160 FILED Nov 14, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MARLA PATRICIA LOPEZ-DIEGO, ) DERIAN RAMIREZ-LOPEZ, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) OF A FINAL ORDER OF THE ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ) ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) OPINION ) Respondent. ) ) Before: GUY, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Marla Lopez-Diego and her minor son Derian Ramirez-Lopez, both citizens of Honduras, entered the United States in March 2014. They entered without being admitted or paroled after an inspection by a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) immigration officer and were immediately served with Notices to Appear. Lopez-Diego and her son conceded removability and filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that they faced discrimination in Honduras as members of a minority group, the specific threat of violence from the killers of Ramirez-Lopez’s father, and the general threat of violence from the high crime rate in their country. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that the petitioners were credible, but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The Board of No. 17-3160, Lopez-Diego et al. v. Sessions Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the denial on appeal. After reviewing the record under the substantial evidence standard, we conclude that Lopez-Diego and Ramirez-Lopez cannot satisfy their burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. We therefore DENY their petitions for review. I. BACKGROUND Honduran citizens Lopez-Diego and her minor son Ramirez-Lopez entered the United States on or about March 14, 2014. Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 483 (Lopez-Diego Notice to Appear at 1); A.R. at 530 (Ramirez-Lopez Notice to Appear at 1). The two entered the country without being admitted or paroled after an inspection by a DHS immigration officer in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Id. at 483 (Lopez-Diego Notice to Appear at 1); id. at 530 (Ramirez-Lopez Notice to Appear at 1). They were detained for two days and were then released. Id. at 232 (Removal Proceeding Tr. at 90). Subsequently, Lopez-Diego and her son moved to Columbus, Ohio. Id. at 233 (Removal Proceeding Tr. at 91). At the petitioners’ consolidated removal hearing, both admitted the factual allegations and conceded removability. Id. at 149 (Removal Proceeding Tr. at 9). On April 22, 2015, Lopez-Diego filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Id. Lopez-Diego filed an amended I-589 on September 2, 2015. Id. at 159 (Removal Proceeding Tr. at 18); id. at 298–316 (Lopez-Diego Amended I-589). Ramirez-Lopez also filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.1 Id. at 1 Although this document is entitled “Respondent’s Amended I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal,” this was Ramirez-Lopez’s first independent application. A.R. at 159 (Removal 2 No. 17-3160, Lopez-Diego et ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals