NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2210 __________ JOAS CLAUDE MICHEL AVRIL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A200-442-291) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 2, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 3, 20202) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Joas Claude Michel Avril, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Judge (“IJ”) denying Avril’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the petition for review. I. Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts necessary for our discussion. Avril, a citizen and native of Haiti, entered the United States in 2005. In July 2018, the Government commenced removal proceedings. Avril conceded that he was removable, but he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. In support of his applications, Avril testified that he was targeted for kidnapping by criminals in Haiti who were motivated by a need for money. Those criminals never succeeded in kidnapping Avril, but he remains fearful that he will be kidnapped for ransom in Haiti. After Avril left for the United States, his home in Haiti was burglarized and the occupants were attacked. Avril’s mother, uncle, grandmother, and other family members have also been the victims of crime in Haiti. The IJ found that Avril testified credibly but that his claims for relief were insufficient to merit relief. The IJ denied Avril’s application for asylum, finding that it was not filed within one year of his arrival in the United States and that there were no grounds to excuse the untimeliness. With respect to Avril’s withholding claim, the IJ determined that Avril failed to show that his alleged past persecution or fear of future persecution was on account of any protected ground. In the alternative, the IJ found that Avril failed to show that he suffered any past harm rising to the level of persecution, and that he failed to show a clear probability that he would personally suffer future 2 persecution. Similarly, the IJ determined that Avril was not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate a likelihood that he would be tortured if he were returned to Haiti. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions. The BIA added that the country conditions reports of generalized violence in Haiti did not establish that it was more likely than not that Avril would personally be tortured. The BIA also determined that it would not consider new evidence that Avril presented on appeal, which included letters about ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals