USCA11 Case: 20-10599 Date Filed: 10/09/2020 Page: 1 of 17 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10599 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-702-149 IVEZETH C. VELASQUEZ ALVARADO, a.k.a. Carolina Velasquez Alvarado, KENSY Y. MARTINEZ VELASQUEZ, SINDY C. MARTINEZ VELASQUEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 9, 2020) Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10599 Date Filed: 10/09/2020 Page: 2 of 17 Ivezeth C. Velasquez Alvarado (“Alvarado”) and her two daughters1 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum. 2 In her counseled petition for review, Alvarado argues that the BIA erred in concluding that: (1) Alvarado’s proposed particular social group of “Honduran women who are unable to leave a domestic relationship” was not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); (2) Alvarado’s proposed alternate particular social group of “Honduran women who are viewed as property” was not cognizable under the INA; and (3) Alvarado was not eligible for humanitarian asylum. After review, we deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND A. Asylum Applications In May 2014, Alvarado and her daughters Kensy and Sindy—natives and citizens of Honduras—arrived at a port of entry at the Texas border seeking admission to the United States without a visa or entry document. Alvarado 1 Alvarado was the lead respondent in the immigration proceedings below, and her daughters Kensy Y. Martinez Velasquez (“Kensy”) and Sindy C. Martinez Velasquez (“Sindy”) were derivative applicants on Alvarado’s asylum application as well as applicants in their own right. For ease of reference, we refer to the petitioners collectively as Alvarado. 2 While Alvarado also applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture, she explicitly abandoned appellate review of the BIA’s and the IJ’s denials of those applications. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10599 Date Filed: 10/09/2020 Page: 3 of 17 expressed fear of returning to Honduras and underwent a credible fear interview, after which she and her daughters were paroled into the United States. In April 2015, Alvarado timely applied for asylum on her and her daughters’ behalf under the INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). In September 2016, the Department of Homeland Security charged Alvarado with being removable as an arriving alien not in possession of valid entry or travel documents under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and initiated removal proceedings. Alvarado conceded removability. In December 2016, Alvarado filed a second asylum application on her and her daughters’ behalf based in part on Alvarado’s membership in a “particular social group,” without specifying the group. Alvarado alleged that, before she escaped to the United States, she had been in a “civil union” with Erick Menjivar,3 who subjected her to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and threatened her and her daughters. Alvarado claimed that she ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals