NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-1113 ______ MYNOR YOBANY MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A077-387-630) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________ Argued: October 29, 2019 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 23, 2020) ____________ OPINION * ____________ Wayne P. Sachs [ARGUED] Sachs Law Group 1518 Walnut Street Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Petitioner * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Suzanne Nardone [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. Mynor Martinez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, unlawfully entered the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated regular removal proceedings against him. Martinez applied for asylum, mandatory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Underlying each of those requests for relief is Martinez’s assertion that his life would be in jeopardy upon his return to Guatemala. According to Martinez, a cartel will kill him because the cartel’s previous leader, Hector Guerra Nova, had extreme animosity toward the Martinez-Palma family, committing multiple acts of violence against them. Martinez also fears for his life because he provided information to United States law enforcement authorities about William Leonidas Alarcon, the current leader of the cartel and cousin of the now- deceased Guerra Nova. To date, Martinez has not obtained any of the relief he requested. After hearing testimony and receiving evidence, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained the charge of removability and denied Martinez’s application, issuing a written decision and order. Martinez then sought administrative review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s order. 2 Martinez now petitions for review of the BIA’s order. Because he seeks review of a final order of removal, we have jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). For the reasons below, in reviewing questions of law de novo and the factual record for substantial evidence, we will deny Martinez’s petition. I Martinez argues that the BIA erred by denying his request for asylum. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief, available upon timely request to aliens who qualify as refugees. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1)-(2), (b)(1)(A); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428 n.5 (1987). 1 Absent special circumstances not present here, to meet the statutory definition of a “refugee,” an alien must be unable or unwilling to avail himself of his home country’s protection “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant bears the burden of proving refugee status. See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). And here Martinez argues that he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals