NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3543 ___________ LUIS ANTONIO ROSALES MANRRIQUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-266-881) Immigration Judge: Honorable John P. Ellington ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 8, 2020) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Luis Antonio Rosales Manrriquez (Rosales) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding, and relief under the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. In December 2017, Rosales, a citizen of Venezuela, was placed in removal proceedings as an applicant for admission who lacked a valid entry document, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. He maintained that he suffered past persecution in Venezuela on account of his political opinion, and that he would suffer future persecution and torture should he be returned there. At a hearing before the IJ, Rosales testified that he was a famous professional boxer in Venezuela. In October 2013 or 2014, members of the Venezuelan Sports Authority, a government body for which Rosales boxed, beat him severely for refusing to publicly support Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government. Rosales was told that if he did not “fight for Maduro,” they would “finish him off.” Rosales took this as a threat to both his professional career and his life. In addition to continued death threats by phone, his “pad was destroyed . . . they wrote with paintings . . . on the walls.” A.R. at 163. He testified that he retired as a boxer, rather than publicly support the government, and that he moved around Venezuela to avoid further harm, including spending time at his grandparents’ secluded farm. In 2015, he flew to Mexico for a sporting engagement. He remained there, boxing professionally, until entering the United States in 2017. constitute binding precedent. 2 The IJ decided that Rosales’s testimony was credible, but that he had not established a sufficient basis for asylum, withholding, or relief under the CAT, and ordered him removed to Venezuela. The BIA conducted its own analysis of the legal issues and dismissed the appeal. Rosales filed this timely petition for review. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When, as here, the BIA affirmed and partially reiterated the IJ's discussions and determinations, we review both decisions. See Sandie v. Att'y Gen., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir. 2009). We review the agency's findings of fact for substantial evidence, considering whether it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals