Paz-Zaldivar v. Garland

Appellate Case: 21-9571 Document: 010110717735 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 29, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court INGRID YAMILETH PAZ-ZALDIVAR; JOHN DOE, a minor, Petitioners, v. No. 21-9571 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Ingrid Yamileth Paz-Zaldivar and her minor son are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the United States without permission. An immigration judge (IJ) found them removable and ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and ordered that they be returned to their home country. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-9571 Document: 010110717735 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2 their appeal in a brief, single-member order. Paz-Zaldivar and her son now petition for review of the BIA’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the BIA’s decision, but we may consult the IJ’s more-complete discussion of the same grounds relied upon by the BIA. Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). “[W]e will not affirm on grounds raised in the IJ decision unless they are relied upon by the BIA in its affirmance.” Id. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Paz-Zaldivar and her son entered the United States in October 2016. Immigration authorities soon served each of them with a notice to appear (NTA), charging them with removability because they entered the country without being admitted or paroled. Paz-Zaldivar and her son conceded removability and Paz- Zaldivar then filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, with her son as a derivative beneficiary on the asylum claim. Persons claiming asylum must establish that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). For the persecution to be on account of a protected ground, the alien must show the protected ground “was or will be at 2 Appellate Case: 21-9571 Document: 010110717735 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 3 least one central reason” for …

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