Case: 18-60443 Document: 00515203028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60443 November 18, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ELSA MARISOL CORNEJO-BONILLA; JEYMI JOHANA SANTAMARIA- CORNEJO, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A208 537 326; A208 537 325 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioners Elsa Marisol Cornejo-Bonilla and her daughter, Jeymi Johana Santamaria-Cornejo, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) opinion that Petitioners did not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. The issue of statutory exhaustion is close, but we find jurisdiction and DENY the petition. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60443 Document: 00515203028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2019 No. 18-60443 The IJ found that Petitioners, a mother-daughter pair from El Salvador, failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their membership in a particular social group. Their claim was that MS 13 gang members repeatedly threatened then-16 year old Jeymi if she refused to become the “girlfriend” of one of them and after two months, threatened the mother as well. Further, when Cornejo-Bonilla approached the police about this harassment, official help was denied. After the adverse IJ ruling, Petitioners filed a notice of appeal with the BIA, stating: The [IJ] erred in denying respondent’s application for Asylum pursuant to INA sec. 208 and respondent’s request for Withholding of Removal pursuant to INA sec. 241(b)(3). Respondent through her written application and credible testimony demonstrated that she suffered past persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group which she properly defined as “mother’s and daughter’s unable to escape threats from gang members.” Although the notice of appeal also indicated that Petitioners intended to file a separate brief or statement in support of their appeal, they did not do so. 1 Instead, Petitioners requested an extension of the filing deadline on the date the brief was due. The BIA did not rule on the extension request and, approximately three months later, summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision “without opinion” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). The IJ’s decision therefore became the final agency determination. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii). Petitioners filed a timely petition for review. 1 “A petitioner seeking review of an IJ’s decision must file a notice of appeal with the BIA, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a)(1), but is not required to file a brief in support of the appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(f).” Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the presence or absence of a brief may affect petitioners’ rights. For example, some of our ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals