NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 22-1105 ______________ CLAUDIA YADIRA GARCIA-GOMEZ; E. S. A.-G., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A208-278-732 & A208-278-731) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 6, 2022 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: December 8, 2022) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Claudia Garcia-Gomez (“Garcia-Gomez”) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision adopting the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her and her daughter asylum. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision denying asylum, and remand to consider an argument of imputed political opinion would be futile, we will deny the petition. I After entering the United States without authorization in 2015, Garcia-Gomez and her daughter, both natives and citizens of Honduras, were detained and issued Notices to Appear. Both were charged as removable noncitizens who were present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Garcia-Gomez conceded removability and submitted, among other things, an asylum application.1 Garcia-Gomez asserted that she had suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the particular social group (“PSG”) of relatives of Vicente and Wilmer Gomez, her grandfather and uncle and based upon an imputed political opinion. At her merits hearing, Garcia-Gomez explained that her parents left Honduras for the United States when she was young, leaving her and her siblings in the care of their maternal grandparents. She further testified that her maternal grandfather was shot to 1 Garcia-Gomez’s minor daughter was listed as a derivative on the application for asylum. 2 death outside of their home in 2012 but that she does not know why he was killed or who was responsible for his death. Her brother testified that “narco traffickers” murdered their grandfather, but he did not know why. AR 219. After his murder, and her grandmother’s death, she moved in with her uncle. Garcia-Gomez testified that the police refused to investigate the murder, purportedly because they had a relationship with the organization responsible for her grandfather’s death, and suggested that her family conduct its own investigation. Her uncle then commenced an investigation. Approximately two years later, he received threatening letters. Garcia-Gomez testified that (1) her uncle was targeted because he was investigating the murder; (2) she did not see the letters; (3) none of the letters were directed at her or her brothers; (4) her uncle told her the letters stated the family would be killed if it did not pay extortion money; and (5) it was her understanding that she and her uncle were personally at risk. Her uncle reported these threats to the police, but they took no …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals