NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________ No. 20-1845 _________________ MARIA ANGELICA GONZALEZ-GARCIA; JUAN JOSE CASTELLANOS- GONZALEZ, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A208-682-047; A208-682-048) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle _______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 29, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, * District Judge (Opinion filed: March 9, 2021) _______________ OPINION ** _______________ * Honorable Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 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. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Maria Angelica Gonzalez-Garcia (“Gonzalez-Garcia”) and her son, Juan Jose Castellanos-Gonzalez (“Juan Jose”), fear persecution if they return to their native home in El Salvador. Because neither satisfies the requirements for asylum or withholding of removal, we will deny their petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. I. BACKGROUND Gonzalez-Garcia began a relationship with Gabriel Castellanos (“Castellanos”) when she was 13, and the two share seven children. The relationship was often abusive so, in 2010 or 2011, after multiple failed attempts to leave, Gonzalez-Garcia went to live with her sister and “never again returned [to Castellanos].” (A.R. at 157–58.) Castellanos tolerated the separation, fearing reprisal from the family of Gonzalez-Garcia’s sister, as Castellanos murdered one of their relatives. After a few years with her sister, Gonzalez- Garcia and Juan Jose, one of her sons and a derivative beneficiary of her asylum application, came to the United States. Removal proceedings began and Gonzalez-Garcia and Juan Jose filed I-589 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 2018, an immigration judge denied their applications and ordered their removal to El Salvador. The IJ repeatedly cited Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (abrogated on other grounds by Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020)), a decision 2 clarifying the standards for showing membership in a “particular social group.” 1 On appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding Gonzalez-Garcia failed to establish membership in her first proposed particular social group 2 and failed to show a nexus between her persecution and her membership to her second proposed particular social group (“Castellanos/Gonzalez-Garcia” family). (App. at 6.) Gonzalez-Garcia renews both her due process and substantive claims here, but only appeals the denial of her asylum application. II. DISCUSSION The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). In reviewing the Board’s decision, we consider the facts to “ensure that they are supported by substantial evidence,” but “review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo.” Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010). When the Board adopts an IJ’s decision, we consider both opinions. Shehu v. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals