NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 18-1455 ________________ DORA GEYSEL ALVARENGA DE RODRIGUEZ; H. A. R.-A., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Numbers: A208-455-092 & A208-455-093) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on September 16, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 27, 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. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Dora Alvarenga de Rodriguez and her minor daughter, aliens from El Salvador, petition for review of a final administrative order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming both their removability and the rejection of their application for asylum. We will deny the petition. Discussion1 On appeal, Alvarenga de Rodriguez challenges her removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and the denial of her asylum application.2 We review legal and constitutional issues de novo, see Duhaney v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 621 F.3d 340, 345 (3d Cir. 2010), and we will uphold the BIA’s factual findings if they are supported by “substantial evidence,” Gomez-Zuluaga v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 527 F.3d 330, 340 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Where, as here, “the BIA has affirmed the IJ’s decision, and adopted the analysis as its own, we will review both decisions.” Quao Lin Dong v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 638 F.3d 223, 227 (3d Cir. 2011). A. Removability The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “any immigrant at the time of application for admission . . . who is not in possession of a . . . valid entry document . . . 1 This Court has jurisdiction over Alvarenga de Rodriguez’s petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). 2 Alvarenga de Rodriguez does not challenge the BIA’s denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 2 is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i). Alvarenga argues that she never made an “application for admission” because she entered without inspection. Pet. 8–9. This argument is belied by the plain text of the statute: “An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . . ) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). When Alvarenga arrived in the United States without being admitted, she was an “applicant for admission.” Id. Accordingly, because she was not in possession of a valid entry document at the time of her arrival, she is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).3 B. Asylum To establish that she is a refugee and thus eligible for asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), a petitioner must prove four elements: “(1) a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals