NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 20-1862 _______________ NOHEMY ESPERANZA LOPEZ REYES; E.J.L.L., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A209-278-251, A209-278-252) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): December 8, 2020 _______________ Before: MCKEE, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: December 16, 2020) ______________ OPINION ∗ ______________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge. Nohemy Esperanza Lopez Reyes, 1 a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After denying Lopez’s applications for relief from removal, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered that Lopez and her son be removed to Honduras. 2 Because the factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of Lopez’s applications are supported by substantial evidence, we will deny the petition for review. 3 I In September 2016, Lopez and her son were paroled into the United States after an asylum officer found Lopez to have a credible fear of persecution. The Department of Homeland Security charged Lopez and her son with removability, which they conceded. Lopez sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. She claimed to fear persecution on account of her membership in two social groups: (1) “young Honduran single mothers . . . of a boy being pursued by a gang,” and (2) “young Honduran women business owners.” A.R. 45. 1 Both parties refer to the lead petitioner as “Lopez” in their briefing. We do the same. 2 Lopez’s son, a minor, was listed as a derivative beneficiary on her asylum application. The IJ denied the derivative asylum application. Although Lopez’s son presents no claim on his own, he is a co-petitioner in this case. 3 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). 2 Before the immigration court, Lopez explained that she was a single mother whose son’s father was married to another woman and had children with that woman. Lopez claimed that she owned a food stand in Honduras and that members of a criminal gang forced her to pay a “war tax.” A.R. 363–64, 371. This gang targeted her because she “was alone with [her] son” and the gang tends to “search for women who are alone.” A.R. 364. Lopez testified that because the gang “saw that [she] had a business,” it believed that it could get money from her. A.R. 131. When Lopez could not keep up with the gang’s extortion demands, gang members threatened to harm her and force her ten-year-old son to join the gang if she did not continue to pay. Lopez testified that she paid the extortion for two additional weeks because she did ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals