NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 21-2919 MARCELLA LUANA DOS SANTOS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A209-154-458) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 9, 2022 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: June 17, 2022) OPINION* CHAGARES, Chief Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Marcella Luana Dos Santos petitions this Court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to dismiss her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. I.1 Dos Santos, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States in July 2016. The Government initiated removal proceedings and she conceded inadmissibility and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. At the hearing before the IJ, Dos Santos testified to an incident in February 2014 during which she witnessed her neighbor, a gang member, shoot and kill someone in front of her home. The gang member thereafter repeatedly threatened Dos Santos and her children to prevent her from reporting him to the authorities. On one occasion, the gang member purposely drove his car at her to scare her. The gang member’s threats and intimidation ultimately caused Dos Santos to flee Brazil. The IJ denied Dos Santos’s claims for relief on numerous grounds. The BIA dismissed her appeal. Dos Santos timely filed this petition for review. 1 Because we write for the parties, we recite only those facts pertinent to our decision. 2 II.2 A. Dos Santos contests the agency’s determination that she did not experience harm rising to the level of past persecution for purposes of her asylum and withholding claims. We review this factual finding under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard. Thayalan v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 132, 137 (3d Cir. 2021). The agency’s finding is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary. Id. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the gang member’s threats did not rise to the level of persecution. We have held that “unfulfilled threats must be of a highly imminent and menacing nature in order to constitute persecution.” Li v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2005). Vague threats — even death threats — are not necessarily sufficiently concrete or imminent. Id. Here, Dos Santos lived in the same home for more than two years after the gang member committed the murder and began threatening her, but he never physically harmed her. His threats, while frightening, were vague and were conditioned on Dos Santos reporting the gang member to the police, which she did not do. According to Dos Santos, after she left Brazil in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals