NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 18-1115 ________________ LIDIA ANTONIETA SACAIXOT-SACOR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of Order From The Department of Homeland Security and The Executive Office for Immigration Review Agency No. A205-840-564 Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on October 5, 2018 Before: SHWARTZ, SCIRICA and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 10, 2019) OPINION ∗ ________________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge: After Lidia Sacaixot-Sacor entered the United States for the second time without being inspected, she was placed in removal proceedings. She then sought relief on the grounds that she had a fear of persecution or torture if she returned to Guatamala, her home country. After an asylum officer and an Immigration Judge (IJ) found that she had no reasonable fear of persecution or torture, she petitioned for review and claims that the IJ violated her due process rights and abused his discretion. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review. Aliens who have previously been removed from the United States and unlawfully reenter the country are subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Pursuant to this statute, the alien’s “prior order of removal is reinstated” and “the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter.” 1 Even though these provisions state that aliens may not apply for any relief from reinstatement, Congress has made exceptions to ensure compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). In order to reinstate a removal order, an immigration officer must make three findings: “(1) the alien was subject to a prior order of removal; (2) the alien is the same person as the one named in the prior order (i.e., confirmation of identity) and; (3) the alien unlawfully reentered the country.” Ponta-Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 158, 161 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a)(1)-(3)). 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1241.8(e), 1208.31(a); see also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 Under the CAT, aliens who express a fear of persecution or torture in their country of origin may seek relief from removal. 3 If the alien indicates such fear, she is given a reasonable fear interview before an asylum officer. 4 If the asylum officer finds that the alien has not established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien can elect to have an IJ conduct a reasonable fear review hearing at which the IJ reviews the asylum officer’s decision. 5 An Immigration Court Practice Manual issued by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) provides that “[e]vidence may be introduced at the discretion of the [IJ]” and notes that this hearing “is not as comprehensive or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals