NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 9 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS INGRIS SELENA HERNANDEZ No. 18-70824 VASQUEZ; ROMEL DAVID HERNANDEZ VASQUEZ, Agency Nos. A208-542-371 A208-542-370 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 11, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: BEA, THAPAR,** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Concurrences by Judge Bea and Judge Collins Petitioners Ingris Selena Hernandez Vasquez (“Hernandez”) and her minor son Romel David Hernandez Vasquez (“Romel”) are natives and citizens of Honduras who petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”).1 We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal questions de novo and the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). Under the latter standard, the agency’s factual findings must be upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petitions. I Petitioners contend that the notices to appear served on them by the Department of Homeland Security were defective, because they did not include the date and time of the hearing and because they apparently listed the wrong location. These defects did not preclude jurisdiction from vesting in the Los Angeles Immigration Court when those documents were filed there, especially where (as here) the correct information was supplied in a subsequent notice served on Hernandez prior to the scheduled hearing. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 894–95 (9th Cir. 2020); Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). 1 Romel asserts a derivative asylum claim based on his mother’s application. Although he has also filed his own application for all three forms of relief, that application relies upon the same facts as those asserted in his mother’s application. 2 II To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show that he or she was persecuted, or has a well-founded fear of persecution, “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (applicant must show that one of these protected grounds “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”). “To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution” on account of one of the same protected grounds. Garcia v. Holder, 749 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals