NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1866 ___________ JOSE VLADIMIR VARGAS-ARGETA, Petitioner v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208-985-374 (U.S. Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars Q. Golparvar) ______________ Argued: November 08, 2018 Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 3, 2019) Amanda B. Elbogen [ARGUED] Kirkland & Ellis 333 South Hope Street 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Michael Glick Kirkland & Ellis 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for Petitioner Jonathan A. Robbins [ARGUED] Joanna L. Watson United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ________________ OPINION* ________________ SCIRICA, Circuit Judge Jose Vladimir Vargas-Argeta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States unlawfully in 2016. When the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, Vargas-Argeta conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Following a hearing, an Immigration Judge denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Vargas-Argeta’s appeal. Vargas-Argeta now petitions for review of that order. Because the Board did not legally err and substantial evidence supports its decision, we will deny the petition for review. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 I. At his removal hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Vargas-Argeta testified in support of his applications for relief. Beginning in 2009, he worked for his father’s carpentry business in El Salvador. But in 2013, gang activity grew rampant in their town, and gang members began demanding that area businesses pay extortion fees. Vargas- Argeta and his father paid the gang $100 per week. Sometime in 2015 or 2016, the gang demanded more money, but Vargas-Argeta’s father could not pay more than $100. As a result, the gang threatened Vargas-Argeta’s life and assaulted him on five occasions. Vargas-Argeta did not report these assaults because he believed the police were corrupt and would not assist, and the gang told him not to contact the police. Ultimately, he left his town to live with his sister in San Salvador. He was not harmed or mistreated while he lived with his sister, but he testified the gang came looking for him. Because he believed the gang would find and harm him, he fled to the United States. Although the carpentry business closed after he left El Salvador, Vargas-Argeta testified the gang would still kill him for the past failure to pay. The IJ found Vargas-Argeta testified credibly, but denied all relief. As to the asylum claim, the IJ held Vargas-Argeta had not been persecuted on account of any protected ground. The IJ stated that “[f]ear . . . based upon generalized criminal activity and civil disorder is insufficient to be granted asylum.” App. 34. Relying on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals