NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2818 ___________ MARCO TULIO ARANA-GUERRA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A099-482-423) Immigration Judge: Matthew H. Watters ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 23, 2021 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 1, 2021 ) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Marco Tulio Arana-Guerra is a citizen of Guatemala. Arana-Guerra was removed from the United States in early 2006, based on a charge of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (making inadmissible aliens who seek admission without valid travel documents). He quickly reentered the United States. Arana-Guerra was apprehended by ICE years later, prompting reinstatement of the 2006 removal order. Arana-Guerra was placed in withholding-only removal proceedings. He sought to block removal by applying, pro se, for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Arana-Guerra testified at a hearing that if removed he would be killed by corrupt police officers. Apparently, Arana-Guerra (a former police officer himself) and his brother had helped the corrupt officers traffic drugs until one day in early 2005 when the officers killed the brother for refusing to cooperate further. According to Arana-Guerra, his family in Guatemala has received threatening communications ever since. The immigration judge (IJ) made an adverse credibility finding and denied relief. Arana-Guerra then retained counsel to appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Arana-Guerra’s representations in his written CAT application * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 differed in key ways from his affidavit and hearing testimony. The BIA determined that documentary evidence submitted by Arana-Guerra did not rehabilitate his testimony or in- dependently carry his burden of proof, observing that some of that evidence was a collec- tion of statements from family members that contradicted in part Arana-Guerra’s own tes- timony. The BIA thus dismissed the appeal and permitted removal to proceed. This pro se petition for review followed. We exercise jurisdiction over the petition pur- suant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2003). We are reviewing the BIA’s decision—considering the IJ’s decision only insofar as the BIA deferred to it. See Roye v. Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012). Arana-Guerra principally challenges the agency’s adverse credibility finding. But he does not offer any specific examples of flaws in that finding. Cf. Br. 5, 11 (arguing gener- ally, and vaguely, that “sometimes things were not said as Petitioner had said but the mean- ing was lost in translation”). Regardless, we discern no basis to disturb the finding. Nota- bly, review of a credibility or other administrative finding is extremely deferential: such a finding is “conclusive unless any reasonable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals