Beatriz Herrera; Victoria Isabel Perez v. IMMIGRATION APPEALS ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, O P I N I O N

13-3235Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit13 feb 2014

Testo completo

File Name: 14a0126n.06
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
No. 13-3235
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BEATRIZ HERRERA; )
VICTORIA ISABEL PEREZ, )
)
Petitioners, )
) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
) DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS
)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., )
Attorney General, ) O P I N I O N
)
Respondent. )
)
BEFORE: BOGGS, NORRIS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Beatriz Herrera seeks asylum or, in the alternative,
withholding of removal on behalf of herself and her daughter, Victoria Isabel Perez. Petitioner
was born in Colombia and is also a citizen of Spain where she resided before coming to the
United States with her daughter. The crux of her claim is that she suffered domestic abuse at the
hands of her husband while the family lived in Spain and that the government was unable or
unwilling to protect her. Both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“the Board”) denied relief.
As with virtually all applicants for asylum, one may sympathize with petitioner’s desire
to continue her residence in the United States. Based upon the administrative record, it appears
that petitioner has suffered domestic abuse. However, as the Board recognized, that sad fact

-- 1 of 2 --

Herrera v. Holder
No. 13-3235
does not end our inquiry. Even if we were to assume, as did the Board, that domestic violence
“may in some cases be a basis for asylum,” (A.R. 4) petitioner has not established that the
Spanish government could or would not protect her. Absent this vital element, her application
for asylum or, in the alternative, withholding of removal, fails. In reaching this conclusion, we
acknowledge the exemplary advocacy petitioner received below and in her appeal to this court.
Nevertheless, after our own independent review of the administrative record, we adopt the
reasoning set forth in the Board’s decision dated January 29, 2013.
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
- 2 -

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.