NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-1828 ___________ RENE OMAR MENDOZA REYEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A097-701-910) ____________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 19, 2019 Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 11, 2019) OPINION* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Rene Omar Mendoza Reyez, an alien from Honduras, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the rejection of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We will deny the petition. Background Mendoza was arrested after unlawfully reentering the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated a prior removal order against him. In the course of removal proceedings, Mendoza applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection, claiming that, as a former MS-13 gang member who has repudiated ties to the gang, he faces a risk that current MS-13 members would kill him upon return to Honduras because the gang does not tolerate desertion. He further asserted that rival gangs and state actors might harm him under the mistaken belief that he still belongs to MS-13 because he bears partially removed MS-13 tattoos. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, and the BIA affirmed. This appeal followed. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review This Court has jurisdiction over Mendoza’s petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review legal and constitutional issues de novo, see Duhaney v. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340, 345 (3d Cir. 2010), and we will uphold factual findings if they are supported by “substantial evidence,” Gomez-Zuluaga v. Att’y Gen., 527 F.3d 330, 340 (3d Cir. 2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary[.]”). Where the BIA issues its own opinion on the merits, we review the BIA’s decision; however, where, as here, the BIA adopts reasoning of the IJ’s opinion, we review both the IJ and BIA decisions. See Zhi Fei Liao v. Att’y Gen., 910 F.3d 714, 718 (3d Cir. 2018). Discussion On appeal, Mendoza challenges the denial of both his withholding-of-removal application and his CAT-protection application. He also posits that the use of video- conferencing in his proceedings before the IJ violated his due process rights. We address each argument in turn. A. Withholding of Removal In removal proceedings, Mendoza contended he was entitled to withholding of removal because he would face persecution on two protected grounds: (1) membership in a Particular Social Group (PSG)1—“Honduran[] men who repudiated ties with the MS-13 [gang] and attempted to at least partially remove their gang tattoos,” or alternatively, “Hondurans who repudiated ties with the MS-13 [gang],” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals