Angel Zapata Suquilanda v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3038 ______ ANGEL MAURICIO ZAPATA SUQUILANDA Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A206-030-966) Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 11, 2020 Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 1, 2020) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. Angel Mauricio Zapata Suquilanda, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States in 2007 without admission or parole, and he now appeals a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals for his removal. In that order, the BIA rejected Zapata’s requests for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Zapata premised both requests on his fear of violence in Ecuador, but the BIA determined that any persecution that he experienced or feared arose from a land dispute and was not on account of his membership in a particular social group, which he asserts as his nuclear family. In exercising jurisdiction over his petition, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and in reviewing the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard, see Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147, 154, 155 (3d Cir. 2009), we will deny Zapata’s petition. Zapata’s petition arises in the context of a land dispute that turned violent. In 2000, one of Zapata’s neighbors in Ecuador, a man named Victor, sold land to Zapata’s mother, but then he demanded the land back. When Zapata’s family did not acquiesce, Victor threatened to kill Zapata and his younger siblings. The situation escalated in 2003, when Victor shot Zapata’s father in the street. Before fleeing the scene, Victor threatened to kill Zapata, who witnessed the shooting. Shortly afterwards, Zapata moved to his grandmother’s house, about two hours away. He lived with her for over three years, until 2007, when he arrived in the United States – reportedly in flight from Victor. Zapata’s father recovered from the shooting and left Ecuador in 2005. Zapata’s mother and her 2 other children did not move away; they continue to reside five blocks away from Victor’s family. Victor subsequently took possession of the land, and he has not personally threatened Zapata or his family since, although Zapata’s family reports neighborhood gossip that Victor still harbors animosity toward them. Zapata now seeks withholding of removal to prevent his removal to Ecuador. To qualify for such relief, Zapata must demonstrate that it is more likely than not, see Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582, 591 (3d Cir. 2011), that his “life or freedom would be threatened” in Ecuador because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also Valdiviezo-Galdamez, 663 F.3d at 591. A ...

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