Beatriz Herrera, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : the petition for review is DENIED, decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Alan E. Norris, and Helene N. White, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-3235

Document: 006111963444

Filed: 02/13/2014

Page: 1

File Name: 14a0126n.06
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
No. 13-3235
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED
BEATRIZ HERRERA;
VICTORIA ISABEL PEREZ,
Petitioners,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Attorney General,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Feb 13, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS

OPINION

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

Case: 13-3235

Document: 006111963444

Filed: 02/13/2014

Page: 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-