NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 18-1847 ________________ DANY JOSUE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A205-165-732) Immigration Judge: Daniel A. Morris ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 25, 2019 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 24, 2019) ________________ OPINION ________________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge: Dany Josue Hernandez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We will deny the petition for the following reasons. I. Hernandez is a native and citizen of Honduras. He first entered the United States unlawfully in January 2012, when he was twenty-two years old, and was subsequently apprehended and removed. He unlawfully reentered the United States later that year. In July 2017, the Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to reinstate the initial removal order. Hernandez claimed that, if removed to Honduras, he would be killed by either his abusive stepfather or local gang affiliates. After an asylum officer found that Hernandez had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, he was placed in reasonable fear proceedings. Hernandez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT.1 At the hearing before the IJ, Hernandez testified that he had been relentlessly tormented and abused by his stepfather from the age of eight until he fled to the United States. When he left the family home, his stepfather threatened to kill him if he returned. Hernandez testified about two additional episodes of violence that affected his 1 As an alien subject to reinstatement of a prior order of removal, Hernandez was ineligible to apply for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). 2 emigration. He claimed that, after he had witnessed the murder of a friend in 2008, the perpetrators threatened to kill him if he ever identified them. Three years later, gang members murdered his uncle and, according to Hernandez, wanted to kill him too. Although Hernandez was considered credible, the IJ held that he had not established a sufficient basis for withholding or relief under CAT. The BIA affirmed, and Hernandez filed a petition for review. II.2 Hernandez first contends that the BIA erred in denying his withholding-of- removal application.3 This argument is unpersuasive. To qualify for withholding relief, Hernandez must demonstrate a “clear probability” of life-threatening harm upon return to Honduras.4 Past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution: An IJ may find by a preponderance of the evidence, as the judge did here, that an applicant 2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 2017). We accept ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals