NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-1428 _____________ FRANK ANTHONY NUNEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A094-354-686) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman _______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 25, 2022 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, McKEE, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 3, 2022) _______________ OPINION ∗ _______________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Frank Anthony Nunez-Ramirez appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Finding no error in the BIA’s decision, we will deny Nunez-Ramirez’s petition. I. In 1995, the United States issued Nunez-Ramirez, a Honduras native, a visitor visa allowing admission for six months. In 2000, still in the United States, Nunez-Ramirez received Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) after Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras. But the Government revoked that status in 2018 when Nunez-Ramirez received a third DUI conviction. As a result, in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security charged Nunez- Ramirez with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(b). Nunez-Ramirez conceded the charge but filed applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 Nunez-Ramirez argued he was eligible for withholding of removal based on his status in a particular social group comprised of “Honduran Men Who Grew Up in the United States.” (A.R. at 522–29.) He expressed fear of returning home because a gang had murdered his uncle, and he believed he would be targeted as well. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge denied Nunez-Ramirez’s application for withholding of removal, finding he did not establish the necessary clear probability of future persecution. The IJ 1 Nunez-Ramirez conceded ineligibility for asylum because he failed to file an application within one year of arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). He now seeks to press an asylum claim, but as explained below, cannot successfully do so. 2 also found Nunez-Ramirez’s alleged particular social group was not legally cognizable because it lacked “discrete and definable boundaries.” (A.R. at 424.) Finally, the IJ denied his CAT claim, finding that Nunez-Ramirez did not prove likely torture in Honduras. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s rulings and dismissed Nunez-Ramirez’s appeal. In 2021, Nunez-Ramirez moved to reopen his case citing deficiencies in his hearing. He also proposed a new particular social group: “family members of victims of gang murders.” (A.R. at 82–89.) Finally, he moved to retract his asylum concession, arguing he remained eligible for relief. The BIA denied the motion, concluding the asylum claim waived and, in any event, unsupported by new facts. The BIA also declined to consider his new particular social group, as it was not advanced before the IJ. And the BIA rejected his due process claim, finding a failure to establish substantial prejudice. Seeing no grounds to disturb those decisions, we will deny …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals