FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE DEL CARMEN HERNANDEZ ROSALES, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9564 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jose Del Hernandez Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. I. BACKGROUND In 2015, Petitioner applied for admission into the United States at a port-of- entry without a valid visa or other entry documents. An asylum officer determined Petitioner had credible fear of returning to Mexico and he was placed in removal proceedings. Eventually, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Petitioner’s request for asylum and withholding of removal is based on membership in a particular social group: “Long-term residents of the United States who have to return to Mexico and who have family in the United States.” Admin. R. at 97. More particularly, Petitioner maintains he is at a heightened risk of being kidnapped or tortured if he returns to Mexico under the theory that criminal elements target Mexicans with relatives living in the United States who likely have the financial resources to pay a ransom. At the merits hearing, Petitioner testified that he married a United States citizen in 2006 and lived off and on in the United States from 1992 through 2011— albeit without legal status. According to Petitioner, not long after his nephew was kidnapped and held for a ransom that was eventually paid by family members living in the United States, he received a telephone call from a man who demanded $2000 or he would suffer a fate worse than what happened to his nephew. Petitioner said the man knew his wife lived in the United States and could pay the money. Not long after the call, some men approached Petitioner late at night while he was working at a 2 food truck and demanded the $2000. When Petitioner said he did not know what they were talking about, they hit him in the face and robbed him of 800 Mexican pesos. Then, one of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals