NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0444n.06 Case No. 20-4003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED JUANA DOMINGA RAMOS RAFAEL, ) Sep 24, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE BOARD OF MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) Before: BATCHELDER, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Juana Dominga Ramos Rafael applied for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) & 1231(b)(3). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her claims and she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed her appeal, and she petitions this court for review. We DENY the petition. I. Ramos Rafael is a native and citizen of Guatemala who applied for admission to the United States on December 22, 2016. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served her with a Notice to Appear at a place and time “to be determined.” In July 2017, the immigration court sent her a Notice of Hearing, stating the time, date, and location for that hearing. Ramos Rafael appeared pro se for that hearing. After she retained counsel, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that, if returned to Guatemala, she would suffer violence because she is a woman. At the merits hearing, the IJ heard testimony, including testimony from Ramos Rafael, which he found credible, and he considered the evidence, including the 2018 State Department Report for Guatemala. The IJ found that Ramos Rafael had not shown Case No. 20-4003, Ramos Rafael v. Garland and could not show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect women from persecution (violence or kidnapping) by private individuals. Rather, the IJ found that the Guatemalan government had taken measures to address the problem, including the establishment of agencies to provide resources and assistance to women, the creation of specialized judicial courts for violence against women, and the enactment of enhanced criminal penalties. The IJ also determined that Ramos Rafael had not established a cognizable protected group, proven a nexus to a protected ground, or shown either that she had suffered past persecution or held an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. The IJ denied Ramos Rafael’s applications for relief and ordered her removed to Guatemala. She appealed to the BIA, challenging the IJ’s denial of asylum or withholding and claiming that the removal proceedings were invalid for lack of jurisdiction and violated her due-process rights because the initial Notice to Appear did not state the time and place. The BIA found that Ramos Rafael had not addressed the IJ’s critical determination—that she had not shown “that the Guatemalan government is or was unable or unwilling to protect her from the harm she suffered or fears in Guatemala,” as is necessary to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding—and it “deem[ed] any further argument or evidence on this issue to be waived.” The BIA also explained that jurisdiction …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals