NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 22-2840 ________________ REIBIN EDUARDO CATALAN-LOPEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________ On Petition for Review of a final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A208-985-848) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 21, 2023 ________________ Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 19, 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. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Reibin Eduardo Catalan-Lopez is a native citizen of Guatemala charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution as a Christian “openly and vehemently opposed to organized crime.” A.R. 136. An IJ determined his past experiences did not rise to the level of persecution, and that his proposed particular social group was not legally cognizable. The IJ also found Catalan- Lopez could relocate to the part of Guatemala where his mother and brother had safely moved. The BIA agreed, 1 but incorrectly mentioned El Salvador instead of Guatemala in its analysis. An error the BIA corrected in deciding Catalan-Lopez’s motion to reconsider, explaining that “[o]ther than incorrectly identifying the country name in the decision, the conclusions in the decision are derived from the record and correct.” A.R. 2. 2 1 Catalan-Lopez did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, so the BIA twice noted the issue was waived. Catalan-Lopez now asks us to remand on his CAT claim under Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General, 956 F.3d 171, 182 (3d Cir. 2020). But Guzman Orellana was decided before both BIA decisions and did not change the standard for CAT claims, so we decline Catalan-Lopez’s invitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 146 (2012) (“[C]alling a rule nonjurisdictional does not mean that it is not mandatory or that a timely objection can be ignored.”). 2 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582, 590 (3d Cir. 2011). Whether a proposed social group is cognizable is a mixed question of law and fact, so we “review de novo the ultimate legal conclusion as to the existence of a particular social group, while we review the underlying factual findings for ‘substantial evidence[.]’” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Procedural due process claims are also reviewed de novo. Hernandez Garmendia v. Att’y Gen., 28 F.4th 476, 482 (3d Cir. 2022). The BIA’s decision after granting rehearing is the only final order on review. That does not, however, prevent us from considering the analysis in the BIA’s prior decision if 2 In this petition, Catalan-Lopez argues that the BIA …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals