Rosemery Antunez v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-2634 _____________ ROSEMERY VANESSA ANTUNEZ; A. V. A., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A208-158-069, A208-158-070) ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 16, 2018 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: June 1, 2018) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Rosemery Vanessa Antunez seeks review, on behalf of herself and her minor child A.V.A., of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Antunez’s request for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection.1 For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. I. Factual and Procedural Background2 Antunez and her minor child are natives and citizens of Honduras who entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. They were found to be removable under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537 (2012). On January 7, 2016, Antunez filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. In support of her applications, Antunez offered testimonial evidence and submitted documentary evidence. She testified that a relative’s husband with whom she lived twice touched her legs and chest when she was eleven or twelve years old. Several years later, she was hit, insulted, and ultimately abandoned by the father of A.V.A., with whom she 1 A.V.A., the minor child, was a derivative beneficiary on Antunez’s asylum application. 2 “We take our facts from the final order of the BIA, and to the extent the BIA relied upon it, the Immigration Judge’s decision.” Sesay v. Att’y Gen., 787 F.3d 215, 218 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015). 2 was pregnant at the time. The man left Honduras for the Cayman Islands. A.V.A. was born in 2005. Antunez eventually had trouble finding work to support herself and began selling second-hand clothing. Around this time, she was robbed on two occasions by different individuals, who stole her cell phone and money. In November 2014, gang members also began extorting her, ordering that she pay them money, or “rent,” at the end of every month. App. 14. Specifically, two Mara 18 members appeared at her home, brandished a gun, and told her that she needed to have the money ready for them when they returned. Antunez paid them 1500 lempiras for three months. The gang members demanded 3000 lempiras in February 2015, telling her that they would kill her and A.V.A. if she did not pay rent and would harm them if she informed police. Antunez left Honduras with her minor child in March 2015, expressing concern for her safety and that of A.V.A and a belief that she was targeted because ...

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