NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3236 _____________ MAGDI SAAD RADWAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES _____________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A096-546-120 Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman _____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 14, 2021 Before: McKEE, JORDAN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 8, 2021) _____________ OPINION* _____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 FUENTES, Circuit Judge Magdi Radwan petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review. I. Radwan, a native and citizen of Egypt, has not left the U.S. since he entered with a K-1 visa and married Theresa Kuth in 2005. In 2006, his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident. After a physical altercation between Radwan and Kuth’s son, Radwan pled guilty and was convicted of aggravated assault in 2010.1 The couple then divorced later that year. As a result of his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged Radwan with removability pursuant to sections 1227(a)(2)(A) and 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). In the years leading up to his removal proceedings, Radwan sought readjustment of his status through another marriage. When that marriage dissolved, Radwan filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming that he had been and would continue to be persecuted in Egypt because of his affiliation with the Muslim 1 In addition to one count of aggravated assault, Radwan pled guilty and was convicted of two counts of simple assault. 2 Brotherhood. Radwan testified at his final hearing, but the IJ identified several inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony and determined that he was not credible. The IJ then denied Radwan’s application for several reasons, including that Radwan did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims, had been convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and failed to establish it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured on return to Egypt. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without addressing the particularly serious crime determination. In this petition for review, Radwan argues that the BIA erred by (1) affirming the IJ’s determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime; (2) concluding his testimony was not credible; (3) concluding that the IJ had given Radwan a sufficient opportunity to provide corroborating evidence; and (4) affirming the IJ’s determination that he did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution or that he was likely to be tortured if he returned to Egypt. II. We have jurisdiction to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals