NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1423 ______ ADOLFO ARIAS-MENDOZA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ___________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A206-505-608) Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy ___________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 10, 2023 ____________ Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 7, 2023) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. In his petition, Adolfo Arias-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who witnessed a homicide in that country in 2013, raises two challenges to his removal order. First, he argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in rejecting his claim for statutory withholding of removal, which he premised on his status as a witness to a * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. homicide. Second, he claims that he was denied due process when the Immigration Judge denied him a continuance for his merits hearing after his attorney withdrew. Neither of those arguments has merit, and for that reason, we will deny the petition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD) As then-20-year-old Arias-Mendoza was walking home from work on March 12, 2013, in El Salvador, he witnessed a homicide. On the street in front of him, two men, whom he believed were members of the MS18 gang from their tattoos, shot and killed a third man. Arias-Mendoza immediately fled the scene, and the men shot at him as he ran away. He could not make out their faces, and he did not know their names, but still, in fear of retaliation, he did not report the crime to the police. He told only his family, begging them not to tell anyone else. Despite his silence, a few days later, an anonymous note left at his home threatened to kill him and his family if he did not leave the country. On March 25, he left El Salvador. About a month later, on April 22, 2013, Arias-Mendoza was apprehended after crossing the Rio Grande on a raft at the southern border, near Hidalgo, Texas. Despite not mentioning any fear of gang violence in his initial sworn statement to a Border Patrol agent, Arias-Mendoza, through later-retained counsel, requested a credible fear interview. He had such an interview, and after his release from custody, he traveled to York, Pennsylvania, where he found work. In June 2015, through different counsel, Arias- Mendoza moved to transfer his case from Texas to Pennsylvania. As part of that motion, he conceded removability. In August 2015, the Immigration Court in the transferred venue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, held a master calendar hearing for his case. Through counsel, Arias- Mendoza indicated that he did not want to expedite his case and that he wished to apply 2 for relief from removal, which he did later that day, seeking asylum and withholding. In response, the Immigration Judge set a merits hearing for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals