NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-2734 __________ JEIDY YORLENI POSADAS-RAMOS; H. J. L.-P.; O. E. L.-P., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A206-715-717, A206-715-718, and A206-715-719) Immigration Judge: Mary C. Lee ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 26, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 27, 2023) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Jeidy Yorleni Posadas-Ramos, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of a decision entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).1 For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I. When Posadas-Ramos came to the United States in 2014, the Department of Homeland Security charged her with being inadmissible for being present in this country without having been admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Through counsel, she conceded her inadmissibility and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Her application revolved around her fear of a man named Elias Salguero, a bus-line owner in Guatemala who believed that her husband was responsible for the death of Salguero’s wife in 2011.2 In 2019, the IJ, after holding an evidentiary hearing, denied Posadas-Ramos’s application on the merits and ordered her removal to Guatemala. Posadas-Ramos then timely filed a counseled notice of appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the IJ was biased. After the BIA issued a briefing schedule in 2021, Posadas-Ramos filed her counseled brief, asking the BIA to “exercise its sua sponte authority to approve [her] appeal” based on the 1 The other two petitioners listed in the case caption are Posadas-Ramos’s minor children, who were riders to her application for relief before the agency. 2 Posadas-Ramos testified before the immigration judge (“IJ”) that Salguero’s wife was killed when assailants boarded a bus driven by Salguero. Posadas-Ramos further testified that her husband, who was also on the bus during the incident, was arrested for the crime but was released from custody after about six months. 2 following “changed personal circumstances”: (1) earlier in 2021, her uncle, aunt, and cousins were murdered in Guatemala3; and (2) her husband, who was incarcerated in Guatemala on an unrelated firearms offense, was scheduled to be released in 2022. (See A.R. at 9-11.) In August 2022, the BIA dismissed the appeal. In doing so, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant to In re Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), rejected Posadas-Ramos’s claim that the IJ was biased, and concluded that sua sponte reopening was not warranted. This timely, pro se petition for review followed. II. As a general matter, we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals