NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 22-1479 _______________ ELBER EUSTAQUIO YUMAN DAVILA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-429-991) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 17, 2022 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 12, 2022 ) _______________ OPINION * _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Though immigration authorities must show their work in removal proceedings, they need not mention every piece of evidence. We will thus dismiss in part and deny in part this petition for review. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. I. BACKGROUND Elber Eustaquio Yuman Davila is from Guatemala, where he was a truck driver. He attracted attention from a gang, which extorted money from him weekly. A gangster once put a knife to his ribs and threatened to stab him unless he paid up. Though he tried to avoid the gang, its members kept harassing him for more money. Eventually, Yuman Davila traveled to his aunt’s home in the capital. Taking her advice, he reported the gang’s extortion to both the public ministry and the police. Days later, the gangsters left a letter for him at her house, saying they knew where he was. Frightened, Yuman Davila called the gangsters and warned them that he had reported them to the police. In response, they “became furious” and “said that they would kill” him. AR 55. After he returned to his hometown, the gang kept looking for him. Yuman Davila came to America about a year later, in June 2018. He overstayed his work visa and was arrested after a traffic incident. The next month, immigration authorities started removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but sought asylum, with- holding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The immigration judge found him credible but denied all three types of relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. When the Board’s decision adopts the immigration judge’s, we review both. Doe v. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 2020). 2 II. WE LACK JURISDICTION TO REVIEW HIS ASYLUM CLAIM For asylum, Yuman Davila had to apply within a year of arriving in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). He did not. But he says we should still consider his late applica- tion because of “changed circumstances” that “materially affect” his eligibility. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Circumstances changed, he says, when his family told him in June 2021 that the gangsters were still looking for him. Yet Yuman Davila did not show that the gang’s interest in him “either significantly increased or intensified,” so the immigration judge and the Board rejected his argument. AR 4, 58–60. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals