NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-2558 ___________ ANDRE JAMAL MORRIS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________________ On Petition for Review of Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A040-161-592 (U.S. Immigration Judge: Alice Hartye) ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 14, 2022 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 2, 2022) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge Andre Jamal Morris petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons detailed below, we will deny his petition for review. I. Morris is a native and citizen of Barbados who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on November 17, 1986. In 2019, he was arrested and convicted for intent to possess and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. As a consequence of his drug convictions, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony relating to illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, and under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien convicted of a violating any law related to a controlled substance. Morris conceded the charges of removability but filed an I-589 application seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At a hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Morris was the sole witness to testify. He described himself as openly gay and HIV positive. Although he claimed no past persecution, he testified he feared returning to Barbados because of its “Antibuggery Act,” which criminalizes same-sex activity, and because of discrimination against people of the LGBT community. AR 142-43. On cross examination however, he acknowledged there have been no recent prosecutions under the Antibuggery Act in Barbados. Both Morris and the DHS submitted documentary evidence consisting of various reports and 2 news articles relating to discrimination in Barbados against people of the LGBT community. Morris also asserted he feared returning to Barbados because he believed he would be unable to receive quality medication and healthcare for his HIV. The IJ concluded Morris failed to establish that he would more likely than not face torture upon his return to Barbados and therefore denied Morris relief and issued a final order of removal. Morris appealed, and the BIA affirmed. Morris now petitions this Court to review the BIA’s decision. II.1 Where, as here, “the ‘BIA’s opinion directly states that the BIA is deferring to the IJ, or invokes specific aspects of the IJ’s analysis and factfinding in support of the BIA’s conclusions,’ we review both decisions.” Uddin v. Att’y Gen., 870 F.3d 282, 289 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Oliva-Ramos v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2012)). We review the agency's factual findings under the “highly deferential” substantial-evidence standard: “The agency's ‘findings of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals