NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 21-1623 _______________________ JAIME HERIBERTO AYALA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of Removal By the Board of Immigration Appeals Case No. A094-829-422 _______________________ Submitted January 28, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Filed: February 14, 2022) __________________________ OPINION* __________________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SMITH, Circuit Judge. Jaime Heriberto Ayala Ramirez petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Ayala Ramirez asserts that the IJ and BIA erred by failing to apply a presumption of future persecution and “disregarding the plain evidence of ‘acquiescence’ to torture.” Petitioner’s Br. at 27. Ayala Ramirez also argues that his due- process rights were violated by the IJ and BIA. We will deny Ayala Ramirez’s petition for review.1 I. Ayala Ramirez witnessed an El Salvadoran gang murder his uncle in 2001. Shortly thereafter, members of that gang began to threaten Ayala Ramirez with severe bodily harm if he were to tell anybody what he witnessed. Fearing the gang, Ayala Ramirez moved to another town where he started saving money to travel to the United States. He was never 1 This Court has jurisdiction to review final orders of removal from the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, but factual determinations are treated as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2004). When the BIA substantially relies on an IJ decision, this Court may also review the IJ decision. Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA wholly adopted the IJ decision. This Court will thus look to both the BIA opinion and the IJ decision where appropriate. 2 harmed in El Salvador, but other members of his family were. In 2002, Ayala Ramirez entered the United States. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings in 2019. In 2020, Ayala Ramirez filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ denied all relief. Specifically, the IJ determined that: Ayala Ramirez’s asylum claim was time-barred; Ayala Ramirez failed to establish that he has suffered or will suffer persecution on account of any protected ground; the threats against Ayala Ramirez, “even when taken cumulatively, would [not] rise to the level of torture”; and even if those threats did amount to torture, the El Salvadoran government would not have consented to or acquiesced in said torture. Ayala Ramirez timely appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal in 2021. This petition for review followed. II. Ayala Ramirez …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals