NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 20-2451 ________________ FLOREA CIUPANGEL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No.: A209-426-093) Immigration Judge: Jeffrey L. Menkin ________________ Submitted Pursuant to LAR 34.1(a) on March 12, 2021 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 19, 2021) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. McKEE, Circuit Judge Florea Ciupangel, a citizen of Romania who is of Roma ethnicity, seeks review of the BIA’s final order of removal. The BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of Ciupangel’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board agreed with the IJ’s determination that Ciupangel had not established a pattern or practice of persecution of the Romani population in Romania. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.1 I. Ciupangel claims that the IJ failed to properly apply the standard for persecution and that it focused only on evidence of physical violence against Ciupangel’s family and Roma rather than the many non-physical harms Roma face.2 We review questions of law de novo, including whether the correct legal standard was applied.3 Ciupangel is incorrect in claiming that the IJ erred in resolving his claim of persecution in its January 29, 2020 decision.4 The IJ defined persecution as “a threat to 1 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 2 We note that Ciupangel also asks us to clarify the systemic, pervasive, or organized standard. Petitioner’s Br. at 35 (“[T]he systemic, pervasive or organized standard lacks a clear legal definition, making application more difficult and misapplication more likely.”). We decline to do so at this time as it is not necessary for the resolution of this case. 3 Vakker v. Att’y Gen., 519 F.3d 143, 146 (3d Cir. 2008). 4 Ciupangel refers to this decision as the January 30, 2020 decision; it is captioned January 29, 2020 and signed on January 30, 2020. 2 the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive” and appropriately applied that definition to the facts.5 Ciupangel’s assertion that the IJ “focuse[d] exclusively” on the physical harms is also belied by the record.6 The IJ noted that police violence against Roma “is one of the principal human rights concerns in Romania today,” but the IJ also addressed the evidence Ciupangel provided and explicitly concluded that “discrimination and mistreatment of Roma as it relates to housing, employment, education, and health care . . . do[] not rise to the level of persecution contemplated under the Act.”7 Ciupangel did not satisfy his burden of establishing that such harm is sufficient to constitute a pattern or practice as required to qualify for relief from a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals