NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 17-1643 ____________ DIEGO GUERRERO-GERALDO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board No. A205-009-690) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 24, 2017 Before: GREENAWAY JR., NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 31, 2018) ____________ OPINION * ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Diego Guerrero-Geraldo seeks review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We will deny the petition. I. Petitioner is native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States without inspection in 2005. Petitioner is married with two biological children and two stepchildren. All four children are United States citizens. After Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). At his initial master calendar hearing, Petitioner admitted all factual allegations and conceded removability. Petitioner then filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. In his application, he alleged membership in a particular social group (PSG), which he identified as: “Mexican men who have lived in the United States, have U.S. citizen children and are compelled to return to a life of poverty in Mexico . . . .” 1 The proposed PSG was later redefined at a pre-hearing conference. There, the Immigration Judge (IJ) stated on the record that the parties had “determined that the social group in this matter is returning Mexican citizens with [United States citizen] children who have lost touch with 1 A.R. 422. 2 their cultural identity and who are unwilling or unable to capitulate to the demands of narco traffickers and drug gangs in Mexico.” 2 However, at the subsequent merits hearing, and again in a brief, Petitioner—now represented by a different attorney—confirmed that he was alleging membership in the original PSG, and not the revised version. At the merits hearing, Petitioner testified that prior to coming to the United States to “better [himself] in the economic sense,” 3 he lived in Zimapán, Mexico, a town of approximately five thousand residents. He indicated that if he was removed, he would likely take his wife and children with him, but that he feared returning to Mexico because there had been “a lot of kidnappings” and “a lot of violence, in general.” 4 He also stated that he did not want to take his kids to Mexico because he wanted to provide them with “a good education” and the opportunities that go along with living in the United States. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals