NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0318n.06 Case No. 18-3830 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED FRANCISCA SIOMARA MAJANO-DE ) Jun 24, 2019 HERNANDEZ; INMAR OSWALDO ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk HERNANDEZ-REYES; RONALD MISAEL ) HERNANDEZ-MAJANO; LUIS ENRIQUE ) HERNANDEZ-MAJANO, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: NORRIS, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Francisca Siomara Majano-De Hernandez, her husband Inmar Oswaldo Hernandez-Reyes, and their two sons Luis Enrique and Ronald Misael challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny their petition for review. Each family member is a citizen of El Salvador. In 2014, they entered the United States illegally, and the Department of Homeland Security before long began removal proceedings against them. They conceded their removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. No. 18-3830, Majano-De Hernandez et al. v. Barr In their defense, the family members said they came to the United States to escape the MS- 18 gang. A gang member twice called Francisca and told her that unless she gave the gang $500 he would harm her family. Francisca paid the money and did not tell the police what had happened. A few months later, she received two notes demanding more cash. She didn’t pay, and her family came to the United States about six months later. The immigration judge denied their application, reasoning that they failed to show they had been persecuted or reasonably feared persecution based on membership in a recognized social group. The judge determined that they could not establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture because they could not show that the government would acquiesce in their torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. We review the Board’s decision as the final agency determination, examining the immigration judge’s opinion where the Board adopted it. Al-Saka v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2018). We must uphold the Board’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 976 (6th Cir. 2009). Asylum and Withholding. To establish eligibility for asylum, petitioners must prove they are “refugee[s].” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). That requires them to show they cannot return to El Salvador “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.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To prove this kind of persecution, petitioners must establish that they were or will be targeted for abuse based on one of the protected categories. Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964, 972 (6th Cir. 2011). 2 No. 18-3830, Majano-De Hernandez et al. v. Barr That’s just what happened, they say. They ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals