FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 30 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NERLY SARAI MELENDEZ- No. 17-72349 ESCALANTE, Agency No. A206-449-481 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 21, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY,*** District Judge. Nerly Melendez-Escalante appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the immigration court’s denial of eligibility for asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).1 The BIA did not err in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Melendez-Escalante’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The record does not compel the conclusion that Honduran society would recognize Melendez-Escalante as a member of either of her proposed particular social groups. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2016). The IJ adequately addressed Melendez-Escalante’s second proposed particular social group, “Honduran women who are viewed as property by their domestic partner in an abusive relationship,” by finding that Honduran society would not view Melendez-Escalante as a domestic partner. We reject Melendez- Escalante’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) establishes that all people who share a child in common are in a domestic relationship. Because § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) defines “crime of domestic violence” only for purposes of deportation under federal law, it is not relevant to the issue before the IJ and BIA, whether Honduran society would recognize Melendez-Escalante to be in a 1 We grant the Government’s motions to file a supplemental letter brief in light of Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (U.S. Atty. Gen. 2018) (Doc. 21) and to file a reply to Melendez-Escalante’s supplemental letter brief of August 1, 2018 (Doc. 25). 2 domestic partnership with the man who raped and kidnapped her. See Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1131–32. Melendez-Escalante did not claim persecution on account of any other protected ground. Therefore, the BIA did not err in concluding that Melendez- Escalante was not persecuted on account of a protected ground as required for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). For the same reason, the BIA did not err by affirming the immigration judge’s denial of humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii). Matter of A-B-, published while this appeal was pending, does not make remand necessary. 27 I. & N. Dec. 316. Melendez-Escalante could not establish membership in a particular social group before Matter of A-B-, and she raises no new ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals