NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2089 ___________ EDGAR GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order from The Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (Agency No. A079-684-341) Immigration Judge: Alice S. Hartye _________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 20, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 21, 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 Edgar Garcia Rodriguez is a citizen of Mexico. He unlawfully entered the United States in 1998 and, in 2002, was ordered removed. Garcia Rodriguez unlawfully ‘re- entered’ the United States, and was subsequently removed, several times. In 2018, Garcia Rodriguez was arrested in Ohio and convicted of driving under the influence. He later pleaded guilty in federal court to illegal reentry, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was turned over to immigration authorities. The original removal order from 2002 was reinstated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). After a reasonable fear interview, an asylum officer determined that Garcia Rodriguez was not eligible for relief from removal. 1 The matter was referred to an immigration judge (“IJ”), who refused to continue proceedings when Garcia Rodriguez asked for more time to have counsel appear at his side. The IJ ultimately concurred with the asylum officer’s merits determination, finding Garcia Rodriguez credible but concluding that the harm he suffered and feared in Mexico—extortion, kidnapping and physical violence by members of a drug cartel called “New Generation”—was neither on account of a protected ground, nor connectable in some nefarious way to the Mexican government. 1 While the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) prohibits an alien subject to a reinstated removal order from applying for relief from removal, treaty obligations create an exception that allows the alien to seek withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 35 n.4 (2006); Cazun v. Att’y Gen., 856 F.3d 249, 254 (3d Cir. 2017). 2 Garcia Rodriguez then filed this petition for review. We exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Bonilla v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 87, 90 n.4 (3d Cir. 2018); cf. Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208, 217 (3d Cir. 2018). Garcia Rodriguez raises in his opening brief various challenges to the proceedings before the asylum officer and the IJ. None of those challenges is persuasive. 2 We address the prominent ones below. Garcia Rodriguez argues that the IJ failed to properly consider his eligibility for relief under the CAT. Specifically, Garcia Rodriguez claims that the IJ ignored evidence that police officers in Mexico are ineffective in responding to violence by the cartels and, worse, actually facilitate criminal acts, some of which amount to torture. The testimonial evidence Garcia Rodriguez’s refers to, however, was thin and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals