NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2118 _____________ ZONIA MARIBEL LOPEZ-RAMIREZ; FRISDY MARIBEL MORALES-LOPEZ, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A206-783-587 and 1:A206-783-593) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 14, 2022 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 18, 2022) _______________ OPINION _______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner Zonia Lopez-Ramirez’s1 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed her appeal. She twice moved unsuccessfully before the BIA for reconsideration of its initial decision and to reopen her removal proceedings. Now she seeks review of the BIA’s denial of her second motion as number-barred. We will deny her petition. I. BACKGROUND Lopez-Ramirez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 2014. When the government commenced removal proceedings against her, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. At her hearing before an IJ in December 2017, she testified to fleeing Guatemala after receiving two threats from the Piwis Locos gang demanding that she pay them or else they would kill her and rape her daughter. She also presented evidence that gang violence and other criminal activity was a significant problem in Guatemala. The IJ denied Lopez-Ramirez’s application. It found that she had an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in part because the country-conditions evidence she 1 Lopez-Ramirez’s daughter, Frisdy Morales-Lopez, who was a minor when the immigration proceedings began, was a derivative beneficiary of her mother’s application and also filed her own application. For simplicity, and following the parties’ lead, we attribute the petitioners’ arguments to lead petitioner Lopez-Ramirez in the singular. 2 submitted showed that “gangs and cartels in Guatemala operate with impunity” and that Guatemalan women are “systemically targeted for extortion, rape, torture, and murder” and are “especially vulnerable to gang and cartel related violence.” (App. at 25-26.) The IJ nonetheless found her ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for several reasons, including her failure to demonstrate that her fear of persecution was on account of her membership in a cognizable particular social group. The IJ also held that she did not qualify for protection under the CAT. Lopez-Ramirez appealed to the BIA, which in March 2020 adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Rather than petitioning us to review the BIA’s decision, she instead filed with the BIA a joint “motion to reconsider and/or reopen” the denial of her application. (A.R. at 78.) She pointed to various legal and factual errors that she said the IJ and BIA had made. She also claimed that reopening her proceedings was justified due to “worsening country conditions …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals