NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-3730 _____________ JULIO CEASAR FERREIRA, a/k/a Julio Ceasar Barbosa Ferreira, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A088-349-118) Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 8, 2020 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 10, 2020) ____________ OPINION * ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Julio Ceasar Ferreira petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review. I. We write only for the parties, so our summary of the facts is brief. Ferreira is a native and citizen of Brazil. He first entered the United States unlawfully in 2007, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) ordered him removed that same year. Later that year, Ferreira illegally reentered the United States, and DHS reinstated the removal order. After Ferreira’s case was referred to the IJ for withholding-only proceedings, Ferreira filed applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection. In support of his applications, Ferreira testified that in Brazil, his mother’s partner harmed him on multiple occasions, and that his mother institutionalized him at a mental health clinic twice, even though he did not, in fact, have mental health issues. He also testified that he served as a juror in homicide and drug cases, and that a former neighbor, who was a drug dealer, threatened and harmed him on the belief that he was talking to the police to help convict drug dealers. Ferreira explained that because of these previous incidents with his mother’s partner, his mother, and his former neighbor, he fears returning to Brazil. 2 The IJ denied Ferreira’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on October 28, 2019. Ferreira timely petitioned this Court for review. II. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review the BIA’s order, and the BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3) to review the IJ’s decision. Generally, we consider only the BIA’s reasoning, but because the BIA invoked aspects of the IJ’s analysis and factual findings, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. Green v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 503, 506 (3d Cir. 2012). We must uphold factual determinations as to withholding of removal and CAT protection if they are supported by substantial evidence from the record considered as a whole. Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the substantial evidence standard, “we will reverse based on a factual error only if any reasonable fact- finder ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals