NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1800 ___________ ANTONIO DELVIN MONTES FUNEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-652-030) Immigration Judge: Pallavi S. Shirole ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 3, 2022 Before: RESTREPO, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed October 4, 2022) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Antonio Delvin Montes Funez, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons stated below, we will deny Montes Funez’s petition. I. Montes Funez is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States in 2021. Shortly after his entry, the Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable for being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Montes Funez, through counsel, conceded that charge and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). At his hearing, Montes Funez testified that three gang members made threats and demands for money, many of which he complied with, on several occasions, and in two different locations in Honduras, in 2020 and 2021. He filed a police report regarding the gang members’ threats and actions in February 2021, and nothing happened afterward. Montes Funez left Honduras the following month. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Montes Funez’s applications for relief, concluding that he failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Montes Funez filed a timely petition for review. 2 II. We have jurisdiction over Montes Funez’s petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review legal conclusions de novo, Singh v. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 503, 508 (3d Cir. 2012), and we review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial- evidence standard pursuant to which such findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Thayalan v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 132, 137 (3d Cir. 2021). III. Asylum and Withholding of Removal To succeed on his asylum claim, Montes Funez was required to show that he is “unable or unwilling to return to” Honduras because of past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground— “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). A petitioner must show that the protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting [him],” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), which this Court has interpreted to mean that the protected ground “must …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals