Andres Caal-Mo v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-1750 _____________ ANDRES CAAL-MO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA A205-526-197) Immigration Judge: Hon. Rosalind K. Malloy _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 9, 2018 Before: JORDAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS*, District Judge. (Filed: January 22, 2018) _______________ OPINION _______________ * Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.  This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. STEARNS, District Judge. Petitioner Andres Caal-Mo appeals a ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination that he is ineligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)1. We discern no error. I. Background Caal-Mo, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in April of 2007. On December 5, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ordered him to appear before an Immigration Judge. On November 5, 2013, petitioner appeared with counsel and conceded removability; however, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and a deferral of removal under CAT. Caal-Mo’s application for protection was based on a series of apparently threatening letters, text messages, and telephone calls received by Caal-Mo and his girlfriend from unknown persons in Guatemala. On March 10, 2016, the IJ entered an oral decision denying Caal-Mo’s applications and ordering his removal to Guatemala. With respect to the CAT claim (the only issue raised in this appeal), the IJ found that Caal-Mo had “failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Guatemala for any reason by anyone.” (Certified Admin. Record at 67). The BIA agreed, discerning “no clear error” in the IJ’s findings “that the threats received by [petitioner] and [his girlfriend] were from anonymous sources” and that “the threatening communications were unclear regarding the anonymous sources’ motivations for targeting” petitioner. 1 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. 2 (Certified Admin. Record at 4). In dismissing the appeal, the BIA found that “[i]nsofar as [Caal-Mo] has not demonstrated the sources’ motive for targeting him, he has not established that the torture he fears would . . . fall within the CAT.” (Certified Admin. Record at 4). This petition for review ensued. II. Discussion When the BIA adopts an immigration judge’s decision and reasoning, we review both rulings. See Quao Lin Dong v. Att’y Gen., 638 F.3d 223, 227 (3d Cir. 2011). We apply a deferential standard of review to CAT claims, under which “administrative 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), and we will not ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals