PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1978 MARIA DEL REFUGIO ARITA-DERAS; L.A.P.A., Petitioners, v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: December 10, 2020 Decided: March 4, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition for review granted by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Agee joined. ARGUED: Sam Hsieh, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS COALITION, Washington, D.C.; Amanda Shafer Berman, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. R. Trent McCotter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Adina Appelbaum, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS COALITION, Washington, D.C.; Yao Mou, Los Angeles, California, Clifton S. Elgarten, Tiana Russell, Amanda Shafer Berman, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 2 BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge: Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board). 1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground. Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings. I. In April 2013, Arita-Deras entered the United States near Hidalgo, Texas, without authorization and was detained by immigration officials. She was placed in expedited removal proceedings, released, and allowed to proceed to North Carolina. Over two years 1 Arita-Deras’ minor son joins her application for asylum and petition for review. For ease of discussion, we refer to Arita-Deras as the applicant and petitioner in this opinion. Our conclusions, however, apply equally to her minor son’s derivative claims for relief from removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). 3 later, the Department of Homeland Security served Arita-Deras with a Notice to Appear initiating removal proceedings, after which Arita-Deras filed an application for asylum. The IJ conducted a hearing, at which Arita-Deras appeared pro se. After being informed at the hearing that asylum relief was not available for victims “of a crime or . . . extort[ion] for money,” Arita-Deras consented to the IJ’s suggestion that she leave the United States voluntarily. However, three months later, Arita-Deras moved through counsel …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals