NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0006n.06 No. 20-3396 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GILBERTO GIL-CERQUEDA, FILED Jan 05, 2021 Petitioner, DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk v. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting U.S. THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION Attorney General, APPEALS Respondent. BEFORE: CLAY, GILMAN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Gilberto Gil-Cerqueda filed an application for withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. 208.16(c). An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the application and ordered Gil-Cerqueda removed from the United States to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Gil-Cerqueda’s appeal, and he subsequently filed this petition seeking review of the BIA’s order. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petition for review. BACKGROUND Gil-Cerqueda is a native and citizen of Mexico. In March 2002, he entered the United States without admission. Ten years later, the Department of Homeland Security issued Gil-Cerqueda a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability as an “alien present in the United States who Case No. 20-3396, Gil-Cerqueda v. Rosen has not been admitted or paroled” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). (Notice to Appear, A.R.# 413.) At a hearing before an IJ, Gil-Cerqueda, through counsel, conceded removability. Gil-Cerqueda subsequently filed an application for withholding of removal and CAT protection.1 The application noted that he was seeking withholding of removal based on “[m]embership in a particular group.” (I-589, A.R.# 225.) In an attached affidavit, Gil-Cerqueda explained that, in Mexico, he had worked as a “self-employed transportation worker” until he learned from a friend that Joaquin Montiel, owner of a rival transportation company, had “plans to kill” him because Montiel believed that Gil-Cerqueda “was ‘stealing’ his clients.” (Aff. of Gilberto Gil-Cerqueda, A.R.# 235.) At a hearing before the IJ, Gil-Cerqueda provided more details about threats he received from Montiel. First, Montiel told him “to move to the side” and “not to get involved anymore with his clients.” (May 7, 2018 Hr’g Tr., A.R.# 111.) Next, Montiel “sent two different people at different [times] to threaten [him] with death.” (Id. at 111–12.) Gil-Cerqueda also testified that Montiel “had money, and he was very respected,” and that he did not report the three threats to the police because Montiel was “very powerful, and he was very connected, and he had a lot of [connections] within the police.” (Id.) Gil-Cerqueda knew about Montiel’s connections with the police because he saw Montiel “frequently visiting the police office – the officers. And they used to go out – they used to spend a lot of time together, and they used to ride to restaurants frequently.” (Id. at 113, 116–17.) Gil-Cerqueda also explained that he knew Montiel to be a violent person because Montiel’s employees said that “he used to mistreat them a lot, that he was very rude, and he was very violent with them.” (Id. at 113.) According to Gil-Cerqueda, Montiel was also associated with narcotics traffickers. Because Gil-Cerqueda “was afraid ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals