NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 20-1486 ________________ ROSBELINDA GUTIERREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A73-641-233) ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 25, 2020 Before: AMBRO, PORTER and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 23, 2021) __________ OPINION* _________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge, Petitioner Rosbelinda Gutierrez-Hernandez seeks our review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny in part and dismiss in part her petition for review. I. Gutierrez-Hernandez, a native of Guatemala, had several harrowing experiences with violence in her home village. First, in 1992 Gutierrez-Hernandez’s neighbors found the body of a young woman lying in the street; she had been choked to death. Second, in 1993 gang members killed one of Gutierrez-Hernandez’s male neighbors who ran a currency-exchange business. Third, shortly after the neighbor’s murder, two gang members attacked Gutierrez-Hernandez in her home. They held Gutierrez-Hernandez at gunpoint, demanded money, beat her, and threatened to rape and kill her. After these experiences, Gutierrez-Hernandez entered the United States in 1994. Eight years later, the BIA ordered her removal. During removal proceedings Gutierrez- Hernandez sought asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that she had opposed violent Guatemalan guerilla fighters. The BIA denied her relief. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 Fast forward to 2019, when Gutierrez-Hernandez filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); she also requested that the BIA exercise its authority to reopen sua sponte the proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). She again sought asylum and withholding of removal, plus withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As to her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, Gutierrez-Hernandez sought protection as a member of the particular social group of “Guatemalan women.” However, the BIA denied the motion to reopen and declined to exercise its authority sua sponte. She now petitions us for review, arguing she is entitled to either asylum or withholding relief.1 Gutierrez-Hernandez cites her previous experiences with violence, as well as her male cousin’s recent murder by gang members, as evidence that it is not safe for her to return to Guatemala. II. A. Statutory Motion to Reopen We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a statutory motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Alzaarir v. Att’y Gen., 639 F.3d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 2011). We review denials of statutory motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 260, 264–65 (3d Cir. 2008). Under this standard, denials of motions to reopen “will not be disturbed unless they are found to be arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” 1 Gutierrez-Hernandez also renews her CAT claim here. However, her briefing fails to explain how the BIA erred in its ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals