NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 20-3217 _______________ MARICARMEN ESCUTIA DIAZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-912-874) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): June 23, 2021 _______________ Before: CHAGARES, PORTER, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 17, 2021) ______________ OPINION ______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge. Maricarmen Escutia Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After denying Escutia Diaz’s applications for relief from removal, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered that Escutia Diaz be removed to Mexico. We conclude that (1) the agency’s denial of Escutia Diaz’s request for a continuance before the merits hearing was not an abuse of discretion, (2) the agency’s finding that Escutia Diaz failed to show a nexus between the harm she has suffered or will suffer and a protected ground is supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the agency’s finding that Escutia Diaz would not more likely than not be tortured upon return to Mexico is supported by substantial evidence. So we will deny the petition for review. I Escutia Diaz first came to the United States in 2007 but returned to Mexico in 2009. She returned to the United States in 2014 with her son in response to threats of violence from the Knights Templar, a violent gang in Mexico. She requested asylum and was referred to immigration custody. An asylum officer concluded that she possessed a credible fear of harm if returned to Mexico. Escutia Diaz appeared at a hearing before the IJ in 2015. The IJ asked Escutia Diaz to prepare a written submission delineating a proposed particular social group. Instead of submitting one, she moved for a continuance. She claimed that the Attorney 2 General’s issuance of Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), vacated, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021), “changed the landscape” for her asylum claim and “require[d] counsel to rethink and probably reconstruct the proposed social group.” A.R. 320. She indicated that she had retained an expert who needed additional time to prepare an opinion consistent with the new legal landscape. The Department of Homeland Security opposed a continuance because the Attorney General’s decision had been released four weeks prior to Escutia Diaz’s motion, the merits hearing was still three weeks away, and it was “not clear why or how the opinion of [the expert] would impact [the] case and why his opinion was not previously sought.” A.R. 316. The IJ denied a continuance, reasoning that, since Escutia Diaz’s case was “not a domestic …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals