Hermine Ouweneel v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMINE J. G. OUWENEEL; CORNELIA No. 18-73366
JOHANNA GERDIEN BAKSTEEN;
PROMISE JOY BAKSTEEN, Agency Nos. A201-248-948
A201-248-949
Petitioners, A201-248-950
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2021**
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: CLIFTON, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Hermine Ouweneel and her daughters Johanna Baksteen and Promise
Baksteen, natives and citizens of the Netherlands, petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence, see Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d
955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
1. To be eligible for asylum based on religious persecution, Ouweneel must
show that the source of the claimed persecution is the government or “forces that
the government is unwilling or unable to control.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d
901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir.
2007)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ouweneel did not
meet this burden.
Ouweneel claimed that her family, as prominent members of the Brethren, a
conservative religious sect, could influence the government of the Netherlands to
prevent her from exercising her legal rights. But despite the Brethren’s strong
objections to divorce and her family’s attempt to separate her from her daughters,
Ouweneel was able to obtain a court order terminating her marriage and awarding
her full custody of the children. Ouweneel’s ex-husband complied with the
custody order.
1
Because Ouweneel’s daughters’ asylum applications are derivative of hers,
the analysis as to her petition also applies to theirs.
2
2. Ouweneel contends that the IJ denied her due process by not advising
her that she was eligible for voluntary departure. However, we lack jurisdiction to
consider a claim of procedural error that Ouweneel failed to exhaust before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we
dismiss this claim.
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3