NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1752 ___________ DWAYNE ANTHONY WALTERS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A077-923-559) Immigration Judge: Honorable Michael Straus ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 26, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 26, 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. PER CURIAM Dwayne Walters petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applica- tion for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. Walters, a citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States in 2003 as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to stay six months. He never left. In 2009, he was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia of the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance in violation of 35 Pa. C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(30). In 2011, after his release from state prison, he was again convicted of the same offense. In May 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Walters with a Form I-851 Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), the expedited removal statute. The Notice of Intent charged him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Walters signed the notice and, pursuant to the check-boxes, did not rebut the charges by contesting his removability, but requested withholding of re- moval under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 238.1(c), 1208.16(c). He was referred to an asylum officer for a credible-fear interview, based on his statement that he feared he would be tortured if he were returned to Jamaica. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 238.1(f)(3), 208.31. The asylum officer referred the case to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for full consideration of the request for relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(e). No FARO was issued at that time. 2 An IJ conducted “withholding only” proceedings, at which Walters testified that he feared he would face torture in Jamaica at the hands of a gang. The IJ concluded that Walters had not met his burden of proof on his CAT claim. The Board remanded, finding that the IJ had failed to consider evidence, including documentation supporting Walters’ “U visa” application, which it deemed “central” to his CAT claim. 1 On remand, the IJ held another hearing and, again, denied relief. On appeal, the BIA determined that the IJ failed to consider all of the evidence in the record, including articles regarding gangs and corrup- tion in Jamaica, and remanded the matter. The IJ’s final opinion set forth all of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals