Black People's Ancestors Didn't Ask to Come Here. Catholic Bishops Have No 'Compassion' For Them. There's No Money in It.
What was Alex Pretti kicking at when he was caught on camera rioting 6 days before he got himself killed?
Alex Pretti was kicking at my little Black girl's right to work, unprotected by "compassionate" Catholic Bishops on the take.
My daughter was crippled with club feet, but rode her little bike 6.5 miles to Taco Bell in Lockeford. She had to ride on Hwy 88 where giant trucks kicked up gravel in her face.
When she got there, she was supposed to get 20 hrs per week, but only got 17-1/2, while the Latina manager's undocumented brother got 80 hours per week on 3 social security cards.
My daughter's great-grandmother, born in 1899, was a child of former slaves, who didn't ask to be enslaved here; as a single mother in the Depression she built a business of 4 Log Cabin restaurants in Stockton and Lodi.
Lodi loses a landmark–1930s Lodi building that has housed the Log Cabin…demolished Thursday (July 13, 2012)
Texas AG Says Catholic Charity in Bishop Seitz’s Diocese Operates `Stash Houses` Concealing Illegal Aliens
Our Black family members haven't been getting any "compassion" from Catholic Bishops who got $100s millions from Biden to bring in endless legions of undocumented migrants like the Taco Bell manager's brother to lower the wages of people who are descended from the founders and builders of our country.
Alex Pretti was kicking at the people who try to protect my daughter's right to live and work.
Don't like La Migra? Change the law.
Or you could be like my friend Mario who is a landscaping foreman; he barely speaks any English but went to all the trouble of becoming naturalized, the same as my grandparents.
We don't go kicking at officers protecting people's right to live and work, unprotected by "compassionate" Catholic Bishops.
We don't take unsafe weapons liable to go off "accidentally" in an unsafe situatuon we ourselves create.
We're here to live and work, not destroy a country millions of people still long to get into.
Same Maria Santay or different?
* * *
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/2121787.html
ANTAY POROJ v. GARLAND (2021)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Maria SANTAY-POROJ; Delmy Mariel Santay, Petitioners, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 19-70762
Decided: April 13, 2021
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fermin Valencia, I, Esquire, Attorney, Valencia & Associates APC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Vanessa M. Otero, Attorney, Sherease Rosalyn Pratt, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
MEMORANDUM **
Maria Santay-Poroj and Delmy Mariel Santay, citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Santay’s application, as lead petitioner, for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.1
1. The agency’s findings that Santay did not carry her burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal were supported by substantial evidence.
a. Santay claimed to be a member of a particular social group of “Guatemalan women who are unable to leave their domestic partnership.” But, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that “nothing in the record demonstrates societal recognition of unmarried women unable to leave their domestic relationship.” Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Santay is not a member of that group. Santay’s abusive partner left Guatemala in 2003, and she had no contact with him until 2015 (at which time he did not try to force her back into a relationship).
b. Santay also claimed to be a member of a particular social group of “Guatemalan women who have been the victim of gang threats because of their reporting of gang crimes and threats.” Santay analogizes this proposed group to individuals who have testified against gangs, which was recognized as potentially cognizable in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). But, in Henriquez, the evidence established the social distinction of those who testify against gangs in El Salvador. Id. at 1092. Santay presented no such evidence here. Even assuming the group is cognizable, the record does not compel the conclusion that Santay was threatened for reporting any gang crimes or threats.
2. The agency’s finding that Santay does not qualify for CAT protection is also supported by substantial evidence. The record does not compel a finding that the government would acquiesce in Santay’s torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). The police arrested and detained Santay’s partner after she complained of his abuse, and country conditions reports show that Guatemala has begun to address domestic violence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. The BIA appeared to adopt all reasons given by the IJ in her decision, expanding on a few. Santay’s opening brief, however, addresses only the reasons expressly discussed in the BIA’s decision. If challenges to the IJ’s other findings—on credibility or the merits—are treated as forfeited, see Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996), Santay’s petition would likely fail regardless of the merits of her briefed arguments. We today assume arguendo that Santay’s testimony was credible, and because the government does not raise the issue, do not treat any of her briefed arguments as forfeited.