NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 18-1827 _______________ MESSIAS WEIDER ESTEVAO; LAUANNY ANTONIELLY SILVA-ESTEVAO; P. N. S.E.; P. H. S.E., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (A202-126-940, A202-126-941, A202-128-340, A202-128-341) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 15, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: February 1, 2019) _______________ OPINION * ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge. An immigration judge need not analyze the mental competency of every alien he sees. He need do so only if there is some sign of incompetency. Messias Estevao made a mistake on his asylum application. That alone does not signal incompetency. So we will deny his petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Estevao and his family are Brazilian citizens who entered the United States illegally in 2014. During removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. And he named his wife and children as derivative beneficiaries. At the merits hearing, Estevao told the immigration judge that this was the second time he had unlawfully entered the United States: the first was in 2004. But he had not listed the first entry on his asylum application. Nor had he mentioned it to his lawyer before the hearing. He told the judge that he “didn’t understand that [he] had to put [it] down” on the application. AR 150. Estevao’s lawyer claimed that this error cast doubt on Estevao’s ability to understand the proceedings. He asked for a short break so that he could confer with his client. The judge denied that request, noting that Estevao had understood and answered all of his law- yer’s other questions. His competency never came up again at the hearing. After the hearing, the judge denied Estevao’s applications for relief and ordered him and his family removed to Brazil. Estevao appealed, arguing that the judge should have granted him the adjournment. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. 2 Estevao did not petition for review. Instead, he asked the Board to reconsider. This time, he argued only that the judge should have gauged Estevao’s mental competency. And he asked the Board to remand the case for the judge to do so. The Board denied the motion. It reasoned that “a sole instance of neglecting to mention a prior entry on an asylum application is not, in itself, sufficient” to warrant a competency assessment. AR 4. Estevao files this petition for review of that denial. The Board had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) and 1240.15. It exercised jurisdiction over the motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, including orders deny- ing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals