NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 18-1614 _________ JENCY DAMARIS LOPEZ–CRUZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-685-950) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ______________ Argued October 31, 2018 ______________ Before: CHAGARES and JORDAN, * Circuit Judges (Filed: March 28, 2019) Alex G. Isbell [Argued] Matthew J. Hartnett Solow, Isbell, & Palladino LLC * The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie retired from the Court on January 1, 2019 after the argument and conference in this case, but before the filing of the opinion. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) and Third Circuit I.O.P. Chapter 12. 1601 Walnut St., Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Petitioner Gregory A. Pennington, Jr. Benjamin Zeitlin [Argued] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent _____________ OPINION ** _____________ PER CURIAM Petitioner Jency Lopez–Cruz challenges an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her petition for asylum. Because the Board did not err in finding that Lopez–Cruz failed to establish a sufficient nexus between her protected social group and the alleged persecution, we will deny the petition for review. 1 I. Lopez–Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied minor in 2014, without being admitted or paroled. She received a Notice to Appear on March 31, 2014, charging her as removable pursuant to ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Also before us are Respondent’s unopposed motion to supplement the record and Respondent’s motion to supplement its brief. We will grant both motions. 2 § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Lopez–Cruz conceded that she was removable as charged. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), citing incidents in which she was harassed and threatened by three men: two neighbors, who are brothers, and the ex-partner of her sister. (A.R. 330– 46). In particular, Lopez–Cruz asserted that she was persecuted because of her status as a “young female head of household.” 2 (A.R. 99). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Lopez–Cruz was entitled to asylum based on her status as a “young female head of household.” (A.R. 92–105). He considered that, although the incidents described by Lopez–Cruz did not amount to past persecution, they were indicators of Lopez–Cruz’s credible fear of future persecution. In particular, the IJ found that there was a clear nexus between Lopez–Cruz’s status as a young female head of household and the harm she would suffer if she were forced to return to Honduras. In making this finding, the IJ pointed to evidence that Lopez– Cruz’s father abandoned her family at a young age and that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals