NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ Nos. 17-2936 & 18-2579 _______________ YANET CANDELARIO SALAZAR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of Final Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A208-931-864) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): January 26, 2021 Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: March 17, 2021) _______________ OPINION* _______________ PORTER, Circuit Judge. Yanet Candelario Salazar, a native of Cuba and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. In the Board’s first * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. decision, it (1) dismissed her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and (2) rejected her request to remand the case to the IJ for further proceedings. In the Board’s second decision, it denied her motion to reopen. Candelario Salazar has failed to properly challenge the agency’s dismissal of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.1 So the gravamen of her argument is that the Board abused its discretion—first when it denied her request for remand, and later when it denied her motion to reopen. For the reasons stated below, the Board did not abuse its discretion, so we will deny both petitions for review. I2 Beginning with Candelario Salazar’s first petition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for remand for three reasons: (1) the IJ lacked 1 Candelario Salazar fails to properly challenge the agency’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal because she does not contest the agency’s finding that she failed to establish that the Canadian government is unable or unwilling to protect her. See Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 495 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012). And we may not review the IJ’s denial of her CAT claim because she failed to challenge that denial before the Board. See Bin Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 120–21 (3d Cir. 2008). 2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Where, as here, [the Board’s] opinion directly states that [the Board] is deferring to the IJ, or invokes specific aspects of the IJ’s analysis and factfinding in support of [the Board’s] conclusions, we review both decisions.” Sunuwar v. Att’y Gen., No. 20-2091, --- F.3d ---, ---, 2021 WL 728417, at *4 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review legal conclusions de novo, Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010), and factual findings for substantial evidence, Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 561 (3d Cir. 2004). That means “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). See Guo, 386 F.3d at 561. We review …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals