Leticia Orellana v. Jefferson Sessions, III

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0039n.06 No. 17-3740 FILED Jan 22, 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LETICIA Y. ORELLANA; SANTOS Y. ) ORELLANA NUNES, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) On Petition for Review from the ) United States Board of Immigration JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ) Appeals ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________/ BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioners, Leticia Yeneth Orellana and Santos Ysidro Orellana Nunes, are Salvadorans who entered the United States without inspection in 2005 and 2002, respectively. They petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which denied their asylum and withholding of removal application. We deny the petition for review. I. Factual Background Petitioner Leticia Yeneth Orellana1 was born in El Salvador. She experienced severe physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father from ages seven or eight until she was 13, 1 The petition of Santos Ysidro Orellana Nunes (Orellana’s husband and co-petitioner) is Case No. 17-3740, 2 Orellana, et al. v. Sessions when her father began serving a five-year term of imprisonment in the United States. During the time her father was in an American prison, she married co-petitioner Nunes and moved out of her family home; Nunes went to the United States and petitioner began living alone. Petitioner’s father eventually returned to El Salvador, moved back in with her mother, and began harassing petitioner at her home. As a result of her father’s harassment, petitioner moved to the United States in 2005 and has been working “since [she] came here.” Petitioner did not apply for asylum and withholding of removal until 2008, roughly three years after her arrival. II. Procedural History The immigration judge denied petitioner’s asylum application, citing the one-year limitations period that runs from the date of the immigrant’s arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Although that period can be tolled if the petitioner shows “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application,” § 1158(a)(2)(D), the immigration judge held that petitioner’s claim to tolling was “rebutted” by the facts that she “had the presence of mind” to use a fake identity to obtain employment during the limitations period and maintained such employment for four years. The immigration judge also held, concerning petitioner’s request for withholding of removal (and as an alternative basis for dismissing the asylum claim), that petitioner could not show membership in a particular social group as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).2 “derivative” of Orellana’s, because he is her dependent. Nunes’ history and circumstances are largely irrelevant to the instant petition. For simplicity, therefore, this opinion henceforth refers to Orellana as the sole petitioner. 2 The immigration judge held that petitioner did not demonstrate “any nexus to one of the five factors under the Act.” Under § 1231(b)(3)(A), “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals