FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 8, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MAGDALENA ESTEBAN-MARCOS; PEDRO JOSE PATROCIN, a/k/a Pedro Jose Petrosenio; ESTEBAN JOSE PATROCIN, a/k/a Esteban Jose Petrosenio, Petitioners, No. 19-9561 (Petition for Review) v. WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioners Magdelena Esteban-Marcos and her sons, Pedro Jose Patrocin and Esteban Jose Patrocin, all of whom are Guatemalan nationals, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying their motion to reopen * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. removal proceedings. For the reasons explained below, we deny their petition for review. I Ms. Esteban-Marcos entered the United States in 2003, followed by her sons in 2007. In April 2007, the government charged petitioners with entering this country without inspection or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). They conceded the charges but applied for asylum, restriction on removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Through counsel, they appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and introduced evidence that they had lived difficult lives in Guatemala. Petitioners are Mayans who speak Kanjobal, and Ms. Esteban-Marcos was hated by others who apparently thought her father was a guerrilla fighter. Also, one of her sons was born with a genetic condition that required multiple surgeries. Based on this evidence, their attorney claimed they were persecuted in Guatemala and had a well-founded fear of future persecution because they were members of a particular social group: “individuals who are of Mayan descent, who speak the . . . K[a]njobal language, who do not have access to adequate care for their children based upon rare genetic defects, compounded with the fact that there are financial difficulties and [no] access to adequate care in the community.” Admin. R. at 1067. The IJ denied relief and ordered petitioners removed to Guatemala. The IJ determined that Ms. Esteban-Marcos’s asylum claim was untimely and her sons were not eligible for asylum because their particular social group was not cognizable, any economic disadvantage they experienced was not sufficient to constitute past 2 persecution, there was no nexus between the inadequate medical care in Guatemala and a statutory protected ground for relief, and they lacked a well-founded fear of persecution.1 Based on these findings, the IJ concluded that petitioners also failed to meet the more stringent standards for restriction on removal. Additionally, the IJ denied CAT relief ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals