NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-3567 ______________ HARLEN ELISA RODRIGUEZ-CHAVEZ; A. A. R.-C., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A202-128-945, A202-128-946) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 4, 2021 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 18, 2021) ______________ 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. Harlen Rodriguez-Chavez and her minor child A. A. R.-C. petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rodriguez-Chavez’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. I Rodriguez-Chavez is a native and citizen of El Salvador. She entered the United States without admission or parole in October 2014. The Department of Homeland Security issued her a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court, charging her with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Rodriguez-Chavez appeared and conceded removability. Rodriguez-Chavez filed applications for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). In her asylum application, she stated that she feared the Mara 18 gang would harm her because her father witnessed a gang murder. At her hearing, she testified that she feared gang retaliation for the legal work her brother provided in El Salvador and that the police could not protect her from 1 Rodriguez-Chavez listed A. A. R.-C. as a derivative beneficiary on her asylum application. Because their asylum claims rise and fall together, we refer only to Rodriguez-Chavez in this opinion. Derivative beneficiary status, however, does not exist for withholding of removal, so A. A. R.-C. is ineligible for relief on that basis. See Warui v. Holder, 577 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2009); Matter of A-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275, 279 (B.I.A. 2007). 2 the gangs. 2 As relevant to this appeal, she also asserted that she would be persecuted because she is a member of a purported particular social group (“PSG”): “persons perceived to have contravened gang rules.” 3 A.R. 196. Additionally, she argued that she would face persecution for a political opinion, namely her opposition to gang rule. The IJ denied Rodriguez-Chavez’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal and ordered her removal. The IJ found Rodriguez-Chavez’s testimony to be credible, but concluded that she was not entitled to relief because: (1) she had not presented evidence of past persecution in El Salvador; (2) she could not establish a well- founded fear of future persecution based on her status as a person “perceived as contravening gang rules” because this “amorphous” category does not constitute a PSG, A.R. 59; and (3) her political opinion claim failed since (a) there was insufficient …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals