NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 19-1040 __________ SONIA GLORIBEL ESCOBAR-COTO; K. J. S.-E., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent __________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. 206-772-047, 206-772-027) Immigration Judge: Lisa de Cardona __________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 2, 2020 Before: KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges, and BEETLESTONE, * District Judge. (Filed: July 20, 2020) __________ OPINION † __________ * Honorable Wendy Beetlestone, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. † This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. BEETLESTONE, District Judge. Petitioner Sonia Escobar-Coto and her minor daughter seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying them asylum. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Escobar filed an Application for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Conven- tion Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. In October 2017, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) issued a decision finding Escobar to be generally credible, but denying her asylum or withholding on the grounds that she had failed to show either past persecution or an ob- jectively reasonable fear of future persecution. The IJ further found that relocation within Honduras was reasonable. Escobar appealed the decision to the BIA, which upheld the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding, finding that Escobar did not face past persecution and finding further that there was no clear error in the IJ’s finding that she failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future prosecution. The BIA also agreed that it was rea- sonable for Escobar to relocate within Honduras. Escobar petitioned for review of only the denial of asylum, not the denial of CAT protection and withholding of removal. The issues presented here are whether the IJ and BIA erred by: (1) holding that Escobar did not suffer past persecution; (2) holding that Escobar did not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; and, (3) hold- ing that it was reasonable for her to relocate within Honduras. 1 1 The BIA’s legal conclusions and applications of law to undisputed facts are re- viewed de novo. Rranci v. Att’y Gen., 540 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2008). Factual find- ings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2017). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such relevant 2 For her and her daughter to qualify as refugees eligible for asylum based on past persecution, Escobar must show that: (1) she was subject to “one or more incidents rising to the level of persecution;” (2) the incidents were “‘on account of’ one of the statutorily- protected grounds,” including membership in a particular social group; and, (3) the inci- dents were committed “either by the government or forces that the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Toure v. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 310, 316 (3d Cir. 2006); see also 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals