NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 19-3633 ______________ JOSE NOE NUNEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A099-474-935) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ______________ Submitted on September 9, 2020 BEFORE: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 10, 2020) ____________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Jose Noe Nunez-Martinez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We will deny the petition. I Nunez-Martinez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection and was subsequently removed under an expedited removal order in 2010. He illegally reentered the United States shortly afterwards. He then married a United States citizen, who filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf. In early 2018, authorities arrested Nunez-Martinez, reinstated his 2010 expedited removal order, and detained him. Nunez-Martinez requested a reasonable fear interview. At the end of the interview, an asylum officer determined Nunez-Martinez had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and referred his case to an Immigration Judge (IJ). Appearing before the IJ, Nunez-Martinez testified he was afraid to return to Mexico because of the mistreatment he would suffer as an openly gay man. As Nunez-Martinez was statutorily ineligible for asylum, he sought only withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ issued an oral decision denying relief. Although he found Nunez-Martinez credible, and determined he was a member of a particular social group (homosexuals from Mexico), the IJ concluded Nunez-Martinez had not suffered past persecution. The IJ likewise concluded Nunez-Martinez failed to establish it was more likely than not he would suffer from future persecution and that he was ineligible for protection under the CAT. 2 Nunez-Martinez appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed his petition, agreeing with the IJ that Nunez-Martinez had not suffered from past persecution or demonstrated a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened if he returned to Mexico. Nunez-Martinez timely petitioned this Court for review. II We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “Where, as here, the BIA issues a written decision on the merits, we review its decision and not the decision of the IJ,” Baptiste v. Att’y Gen., 841 F.3d 601, 605 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted), and we “look to the IJ’s ruling only insofar as the BIA defers to it,” Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006)). We review legal issues de novo. Duhaney v. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340, 345 (3d Cir. 2010). But questions of past persecution, or likelihood of future persecution, are factual issues we review “under the deferential substantial evidence standard.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals