FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CARLOS EDUARDO MORENO SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9611 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MURPHY and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Carlos Eduardo Moreno Sanchez (Mr. Moreno), a citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States in 2013, and the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, restriction on removal, 1 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Restriction on removal used to be called “withholding of removal.” Neri-Garcia v. Holder, 696 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012). Some still use the term “withholding,” but we will use “restriction.” The immigration judge denied him relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. He now seeks review of the BIA decision, and we deny his petition. I. Mr. Moreno’s Testimony Found credible by the immigration judge, Mr. Moreno’s testimony explained his decision to come to the United States. In Venezuela, he rented, sold, and installed security cameras. In 2008, he gave the police a video showing a vehicle theft. A short time later, four people kidnapped him and his brother, citing Mr. Moreno’s having turned over the video to the police. Although they threatened to kill Mr. Moreno and his brother, they ultimately released them in exchange for a ransom. Mr. Moreno reported the kidnapping even though the kidnappers, who claimed to be police officers, told him not to do so. Mr. Moreno did not see the kidnappers again for roughly five years and “went back to living [his] normal life.” R. at 133. But one day while he was outside an election center wearing a hat that signaled his opposition to the government, one of the kidnappers approached him on a motorcycle and pulled up his shirt, revealing a gun. The man tapped Mr. Moreno’s hat and called him “a derogatory phrase.” Id. at 169. The man said that he had been in jail and that Mr. Moreno would pay with his life. Mr. Moreno stayed in the area because the military was there, and he was able to vote that day. But when someone shot his car about a month later, he decided to leave Venezuela. After he left, his brother was kidnapped. The kidnappers asked ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals