NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2241 ___________ ALEXANDER LOPEZ-VALENCIA Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-509-070) Immigration Judge: Shifra Rubin ____________________________________ Argued on March 9, 2021 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 6, 2021) ___________ Alexandra M. Goncalves-Peña Catholic Migration Services 191 Joralemon Street, 4th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201 Ranganath Sudarshan Covington & Burling 850 10th Street, N.W. One City Center Washington, DC 20001 Sara J. Dennis (Argued) Covington & Burling LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Counsel for Petitioner Julie M. Iversen Robert Michael Stalzer (Argued) United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Washington, D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent ___________ OPINION* ___________ McKEE, Circuit Judge. Alexander Lopez-Valencia seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the BIA’s decision and deny the petition for review.1 I. Our review is generally limited to the BIA’s decision, but where, as here, “the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision[] and order[] . . . [and] ma[de] an independent analysis, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions and orders.”2 We review legal * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a final order of removal. 2 Ordonez-Tevalan v. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 331, 340–41 (3d Cir. 2016). 2 conclusions de novo,3 and factual findings for “substantial evidence.”4 Under the substantial evidence standard, “findings of fact . . . [are] conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”5 For Lopez-Valencia to succeed, he must show that his “membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for [his] persecuti[on].”6 The IJ found that Lopez-Valencia was credible and that the violent attacks he described “r[o]se to the level of past persecution,”7 but concluded that he failed to prove that his past persecution was based on a protected ground. Instead, the IJ concluded that “the FARC was motivated to harm [Lopez-Valencia] purely for financial gain.”8 Lopez-Valencia claims the BIA erred when it concluded that the IJ’s failure to analyze the particular social groups he relied upon was harmless error. An error is harmless “when it is highly probable that the error did not affect the outcome of the case.”9 Here, any error by the IJ was harmless because it did not affect the outcome of the case. As the BIA noted, the persecution Lopez-Valencia established resulted from his failure to yield to FARC’s extortionate demands. 3 Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2004). 4 Gomez-Zuluaga v. Att’y Gen., 527 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals