NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-3866 ____________ ANA RUTH DUENAS-DECERRITOS; KEYSI DAYANA CERRITOS-DUENAS; Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board Nos. A206-730-262 & A206-730-263) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 12, 2017 Before: RESTREPO, GREENBERG and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 9, 2018) ____________ OPINION * ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FISHER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Ana Ruth Duenas de Cerritos and her minor daughter, Keysi Dayana Cerritos Duenas, seek review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We will deny the petition. I. Petitioner and her daughter are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They entered the United States, without inspection, in May of 2014 (supposedly to join Petitioner’s husband who had been in the United States, without legal status, for several years). The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings, charging Petitioner and her daughter with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). After admitting all factual allegations and conceding removability, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Prior to her hearing, Petitioner submitted a signed, written declaration in which she explained that she was afraid to return to El Salvador because she had been “threatened by [the Mara 18 gang] and specifically by an individual named Giovanni who associated . . . with the Maras.” 1 According to the declaration, Giovanni used to transport Petitioner to town to purchase groceries. But after Giovanni made several unwanted 1 Administrative Record (A.R.) 277. 2 sexual advances and harassing phone calls to Petitioner, she discarded and replaced her phone’s chip—thereby changing her phone number. Giovanni then threatened Petitioner and her daughter, stating that he would kill them if she contacted the police. Shortly after this incident, Petitioner started receiving extortionate phone calls, supposedly from the Maras, demanding $3,000 in exchange for her safety. She believed the extortionate calls were linked to Giovanni because “he told [Petitioner] that he had connections with the Maras.” 2 After several calls from the Maras, she escaped to her sister’s village, and later entered the United States. At Petitioner’s hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), however, her testimony deviated from her written declaration in several respects. Some inconsistencies were minor, such as dates that did not match those in her declaration or in a police report she submitted to Salvadoran authorities. Other discrepancies were more significant and related to key facts. For example, although Petitioner wrote that Giovanni phoned her repeatedly and that she discarded the chip in her phone as a result, she testified before the IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals