NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-3816 ___________ FRANCISCO JAVIER CABRERA-COLUNGA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-135-135) Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 9, 2018 Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 20, 2018) ___________ OPINION* __________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Francisco Cabrera-Colunga petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to affirm the Immigration Judge’s order that denied his application for withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection from removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 208.17.1 We will deny the petition.2 Withholding of removal is mandatory if “the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened” because of a protected ground. § 1231(b)(3)(A). An alien must “establish a ‘clear probability of persecution,’ i.e., that it is more likely than not, that s/he would suffer persecution upon returning home.” Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General of the United States, 663 F.3d at 582, 591 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984)). Cabrera-Colunga, a native of Mexico, asserts it is more likely than not that he will be forced to choose between two horrible alternatives if returned to Mexico: life in a gang or suffer violence from a gang. He left one gang while still an adolescent to join the military. Another gang (the Zetas) did not exist until after Cabrera-Colunga was in the 1 The Board also affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum, but Cabrera-Colunga does not petition us to review that decision. 2 We have jurisdiction to review the decision of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Because the BIA issued its own opinion, and did not simply adopt the opinion of the IJ, we review only the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision. However, to the extent the BIA deferred to or adopted the IJ’s reasoning, we also look to and consider the decision of the IJ on those points.” Nelson v. Attorney General of United States, 685 F.3d 318, 320–21 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). We review for substantial evidence, meaning that we will not grant a petition for review “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” of the agency’s findings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2 United States. But he says the Zetas are known to seek out former military persons and coerce them to join.3 He is convinced both gangs will more likely than not pursue him if he returns to Mexico and harm him and his family when he refuses to join. The evidence, however, does not compel this conclusion. He testified only that a gang ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals