NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 22-1142 ______________ W.R.R., Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A207-054-101) _________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on December 8, 2022 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: April 4, 2023) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FUENTES, Circuit Judge. W.R.R. petitions for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.1 I. W.R.R. is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. W.R.R. entered the United States at a young age and was later granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In March 2016, W.R.R. was arrested on a 14-count indictment, alleging that W.R.R. was in a stolen vehicle while in possession of a handgun, and that W.R.R. had attempted to harm another person. W.R.R. pleaded guilty to a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 2C:29-2(b) for eluding arrest by motor vehicle creating a risk of death or injury and was sentenced to eight years of incarceration. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against W.R.R. via a Notice to Appear. W.R.R. initially appeared before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pro se. W.R.R. applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ found that W.R.R.’s felony eluding conviction was a particularly serious crime, rendering W.R.R. ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ also found that W.R.R. had not met the burden of demonstrating eligibility for CAT relief because W.R.R. had not shown that public officials would consent or acquiesce to torture at the hands of gang members or that it was more likely than not that W.R.R. would be tortured if removed. 1 The petitioner's motion to amend the caption to refer to the petitioner as “W.R.R” is granted, and the Clerk is directed to amend the caption. 2 W.R.R. obtained counsel and appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision in part and remanded in part. The BIA upheld the finding that W.R.R.’s conviction qualified as a particularly serious crime. But the BIA remanded to the IJ for further proceedings on a CAT claim based on W.R.R.’s identity as a bisexual, gender non-binary person. On remand, the IJ denied W.R.R.’s CAT claim, finding that it was not more likely than not that W.R.R. would suffer torture at the instigation or acquiescence of a public official. The IJ further found that W.R.R. failed to identify specific evidence that W.R.R. personally would be tortured. W.R.R. moved for reconsideration—arguing W.R.R. should have had a chance to testify and supplement the record on remand—which was denied. W.R.R. appealed both decisions, and the BIA dismissed both appeals. W.R.R. now petitions this Court for review. II. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals