NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1396 ___________ ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ GUERRA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A203-579-477) Immigration Judge: Joseph T. Leonard ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 23, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 4, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se petitioner Alfredo Rodriguez Guerra petitions for review of a final order of removal. For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the petition. Rodriguez Guerra is a citizen of Cuba. In 2019, he left Cuba and presented himself to Border Patrol officials in Texas. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with being inadmissible because he did not have a valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). An asylum officer determined that he possessed a credible fear of persecution in Cuba, the case was transferred to an Immigration Judge (IJ), and he filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At a hearing before the IJ, Rodriguez Guerra testified in support of his applications. He alleged that he had been arrested and beaten in Cuba on account of his political opinions. The IJ denied relief, concluding that Rodriguez Guerra had not testified credibly. Rodriguez Guerra appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s credibility determination.1 We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). In cases like this one, where “our Court is called to evaluate an IJ’s credibility determination that has been adopted by the BIA, we do so with exceptional deference.” Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2017); see also 8 U.S.C. 1 As an alternative ground, the IJ determined that the harm Rodriguez Guerra claimed to have suffered in the past did not rise to the level of persecution, but the BIA did not rely on that ground, so it is not before us. See Li v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 163 (3d Cir. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that the Court must uphold the agency’s credibility determination “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). We conclude that the agency’s credibility determination was reasonable. As the BIA observed, Rodriguez Guerra testified inconsistently about his encounters with authorities. In his credible-fear interview, he stated that, “[i]n total,” he had been threatened twice in Cuba, on December 5, 2018, and February 23, 2019. A.R. at 305. On the first occasion, he stated, he was fired from his job because he had expressed anti- government sentiments and refused to attend political meetings; he did not speak to police that day. See A.R. at 307. On the second occasion, he was taken to the police ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals