NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-3760 ___________ RAUL RODRIGUEZ-GALVEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A215-915-184) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 6, 2020 Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 8, 2020) ___________ 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. Raul Rodriguez-Galvez seeks review of the final agency order authorizing his removal from the United States. We will deny his petition for review. I. Rodriguez-Galvez is a citizen of Honduras. In 2018, he arrived at the United States’ southern border to seek asylum, claiming fear of harm based on kinship ties— local criminals stole the family farm, killed Rodriguez-Galvez’s father and brother, and attempted to kill him as well—as well as an imputed political opinion of ‘supporting law and order.’ An immigration judge (IJ) found Rodriguez-Galvez inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (making inadmissible aliens who seek admission without valid travel documents). A merits hearing on his applications for relief followed. The IJ found that Rodriguez-Galvez’s testimony at the hearing was not credible. The IJ determined that, even if the testimony were credible, asylum should still be denied. While determining that past harm to Rodriguez-Galvez was persecution-level severe, and that his asserted particular social group (“PSG”) of kinship ties was cognizable, the IJ found no nexus between the harm and the PSG.1 The IJ also 1 The IJ’s recognition of Rodriguez-Galvez’s nuclear family as a PSG was based on Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 42 (BIA 2017), overruled in part by 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), which has since fallen out of favor at the agency level, see, e.g., L- E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 586 (“In the ordinary case, a family group will not [be a PSG], because it will not have the kind of identifying characteristics that render the family socially distinct within the society in question.”); Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 333 n.8 (A.G. 2018) (“There is reason to doubt that a nuclear family can comprise a 2 determined that Rodriguez-Galvez failed to advance a cognizable imputed political opinion and that, regardless, there is no evidence of the required nexus between such an opinion and any harm that might befall Rodriguez-Galvez if removed to Honduras. The IJ denied withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act based on the same reasons it denied asylum. The IJ denied relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because there was no evidence that the Honduran government would acquiesce to any harm inflicted upon Rodriguez-Galvez. On appeal, the BIA assumed, arguendo, that Rodriguez-Galvez’s testimony was credible, and it affirmed the decision of the IJ. The BIA determined that both ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals