NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-2783 ________________ GERMAN CORDERO MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A045-045-877) Immigration Judge: Honorable John B. Carle ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 12, 2018 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 26, 2018) ________________ 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. Petitioner German Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala who was deported earlier this year, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision to affirm withholding of removal and denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We will deny review. I. Background Following the murder of his father, a military recruiter who carried out mandatory conscription orders for the Guatemalan government, and the murder of a young sister, Martinez joined his mother and siblings in the United States and was admitted as a lawful permanent resident. He was subsequently deemed inadmissible and removed to Guatemala as a result of a conviction for committing a lewd act with a minor, a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Upon his removal, according to Martinez, he initially remained in his hometown where he was threatened by the same family that had murdered his father and sister; he then relocated and ultimately lived for approximately six years in Guatemala City, where he was not contacted again by the family that threatened him but was required, like others in the area, to make “rent” payments, a form of extortion, to the MS-18 gang. After Martinez illegally reentered the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his earlier order of removal, Martinez sought withholding of removal on the ground that he was persecuted due to his membership in three purportedly protected “particular social group[s],” see 8 CFR § 1208.16(b)(1)(i): (1) his 2 family, which he contends was targeted on account of his father’s former occupation, (2) a group of Guatemalans with “American accent[s],” AR 401, targeted by the MS-18 gang because it is assumed they have access to resources, and (3) a group of Guatemalans targeted by MS-18 because of previous resistance to the gang’s extortions. He also seeks relief under the CAT. Following a hearing and testimony, the IJ rejected his claims. The IJ concluded that Martinez failed to allege a clear probability of future persecution on account of a particular group because, even accepting that Martinez’s family was a particular social group that was threatened because of his father’s former employment, his “past experiences in Guatemala do not rise to the level of past persecution,” AR 135, such that he could not establish a rebuttable presumption of future persecution, and the record demonstrated Martinez could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of Guatemala. The IJ found Martinez’s other ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals