NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ Nos. 21-2955 & 22-2220 ____________ HERMENEGILDO GONZALEZ CABRERA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-194-022) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 17, 2023 ____________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, GREENAWAY, JR. and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Filed: June 14, 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. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Hermenegildo Gonzalez Cabrera (“Gonzalez”) petitions this Court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. He also petitions for review of the BIA’s decision denying a motion to reopen and for administrative closure. The petitions have been consolidated. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the consolidated petition for review. I.1 Gonzalez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He was born in 1990 and has been in the United States without permission since 2006. He was issued a notice to appear in December 2013 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, cancellation of removal, and relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). Prior to his hearing before the IJ, Gonzalez sought a continuance to resolve a criminal matter against him stemming from a domestic dispute with the mother of his two United States citizen children. The IJ denied a continuance. After the hearing, the IJ denied asylum, withholding, CAT relief, and cancellation of removal. Gonzalez appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal. Gonzalez timely petitioned for review. 1 Because we write for the parties, we recite only those facts pertinent to our decision. 2 The criminal matter later was dismissed. Gonzalez moved to reopen his case with the BIA and requested that his case be administratively closed2 so he could pursue his DACA application. The BIA denied relief. Gonzalez timely filed a second petition for review. II.3 To be granted asylum, Gonzalez was required to show, among other things, that he is unable or unwilling to return to Guatemala because of past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 516 (3d Cir. 2006). Eligibility for withholding of removal is similar but more difficult to satisfy4; for that form of relief, Gonzalez was required to 2 Administrative closure is an informal tool used by the BIA to “pause” proceedings and remove them from the docket to await an event relevant to the proceeding but outside the control of the parties. See Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 113, 117–18 (3d Cir. 2021); see also In re Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021) (deciding that the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals