Antonia Osorio Herrera v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIA OSORIO HERRERA, et. al. No. 20-71250 Petitioners, BIA A202-176-596 A202-176-597 v. A202-176-598 A202-176-599 MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 18, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge. Lead Petitioner Antonia Osorio Herrera and three of her children, as rider- derivatives (collectively, “Petitioners”), petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Osorio * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 1 Herrera sought relief on the basis of her membership in a protected class: the familial relationship to her late husband. The BIA cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), to adopt and affirm the IJ’s decision, so we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the BIA. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008). We review the decision that Osorio Herrera has not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and grant the petition for review. I. To satisfy the first step in the two-step asylum process, an applicant must show that she “is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail . . . herself of the protection of, [the country of removal] because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “[T]he family remains the quintessential particular social group.” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015). An asylum applicant must also establish that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecut[ion].” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “Accordingly, the persecutor’s motive is critical and the applicant must come forward with some 2 evidence of motive, direct or circumstantial.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). “Proof of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that a well-founded fear of future persecution exists.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, though the IJ recognized Petitioners’ familial relationship with Osorio Herrera’s late husband as a “particular social group,” the IJ determined that Osorio Herrera did not meet the requirements for asylum because she did not show that she suffered past persecution, nor did she demonstrate an “objectively reasonable” …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals