Case: 18-10627 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10627 ________________________ Agency No. A206-717-281 ISAMAR DEL-CARMEN SANCHEZ-CHICAS, a.k.a. Isamarde Sanchez-Chicas, J.G.A.-S., Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 24, 2019) Case: 18-10627 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Isamar Sanchez-Chicas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). I. In May 2014 Sanchez-Chicas left El Salvador with her daughter and entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Shortly after that the government initiated removal proceedings against her. Sanchez-Chicas conceded her removability, but she sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In her application Sanchez-Chicas stated that she fled El Salvador, where she had worked as a market vendor, because gang members had threatened to harm her and her daughter if she did not pay them extortion money. 1 To establish asylum eligibility an “alien must, with credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, or (2) a well- founded fear that a protected ground will cause future persecution.” Sama v. U.S. 1 Sanchez-Chicas included her daughter as a rider on her asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). On appeal, Sanchez-Chicas does not challenge the Board’s determination that, because she did not file her own application, the daughter was not entitled to assert a derivative claim for withholding of removal or CAT relief. 2 Case: 18-10627 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 3 of 6 Att’y Gen., 887 F.3d 1225, 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted). Protected grounds include “nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Sanchez-Chicas contended before the immigration judge (IJ) that the gang persecuted her on account of her membership in her family and for being a single mother, which she argued qualify as particular social groups; and on account of her refusal to pay the gang extortion money and her reporting that demand to the police, which she argued qualify as political opinions. The Board affirmed the IJ’s factual finding that the gang’s “motive for threatening [Sanchez-Chicas] was her work as a merchant and the gang’s desire to extort money.” As a result, the Board agreed with the IJ that Sanchez-Chicas did not satisfy her “burden of proving that [she] suffered past persecution or ha[d] a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.” II. We review factual findings under the substantial evidence test, which is “highly deferential.” Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that test we “must affirm the decision if ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals