NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2544 ___________ WILSON PATZAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-406-632) Immigration Judge: Honorable Irma Lopez Defillo ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 24, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RESTREPO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 29, 2018) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Wilson Patzan petitions pro se for review of a final order of removal. For the reasons detailed below, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Patzan is a citizen of Guatemala. He entered the United States in 2011. In 2017, the Government charged him with being removable as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Through counsel, Patzan conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). During a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Patzan testified in support of his application. He claimed to be a member of a particular social group he defined as “Guatemalan school children who are being coerced by gangs at or near schools and are threatened with harm if they do not . . . join or comply with the mandates of the gangs.” A.R. at 127. Patzan recounted three incidents in which he had been beaten by gang members in Guatemala because he refused to join the gang. The IJ denied all relief, concluding that, even assuming that Patzan testified credibly—a point on which the IJ expressed some skepticism—he had not identified a cognizable social group. The IJ concluded that the group described by Patzan was not particularized and did not possess social distinction, which was fatal to Patzan’s asylum and withholding claims. The IJ also concluded that Patzan’s CAT claim failed because he had not shown that the government in Guatemala would consent or acquiesce to any torture. Patzan appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ, ruling that Patzan had waived any challenge to the denial of the CAT claim and that 2 the IJ had not erred in rejecting Patzan’s proposed social group. Patzan filed a timely petition for review to this Court. We generally have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Because the BIA “appears to have substantially relied upon” the IJ’s decision, we review both opinions. Xin Jie Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2004). We review the agency’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard, but must uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Mendoza- Ordonez v. Att’y Gen., 869 F.3d 164, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals