NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0109n.06 No. 20-3583 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NOE RAYON-AQUINO, ) FILED Mar 01, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) Before: STRANCH, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Noe Rayon-Aquino, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed from the United States. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Rayon-Aquino now seeks review of the BIA’s decision. For the reasons below, we DENY the petition for review. I. Noe Rayon-Aquino was born in Mexico in 1988. Starting when he was about eight years old, his stepfather physically and verbally abused him and would often deny him food. Rayon- Aquino moved in with his grandparents when he was about eleven. Unfortunately, Rayon- Aquino’s grandfather also proved to be physically and verbally abusive toward him. Rayon-Aquino fled to the United States after a series of encounters with the Zetas cartel during his teenage years. The Zetas murdered his grandfather. Then, they threatened to kill No. 20-3583, Rayon-Aquino v. Wilkinson Rayon-Aquino and his grandmother if he did not give them the title to his grandparents’ land. His grandmother still owns the land but continues to receive threats from the Zetas. Rayon-Aquino, for his part, left Mexico and entered the United States without inspection around April 2006, about six months after the last time the Zetas threatened him. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings and issued Rayon-Aquino a notice to appear. Rayon-Aquino conceded removability but filed an application for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He initially raised two claims for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3): one based on the abuse that he suffered from family members during childhood and another based on the threats that he received from the Zetas. The IJ denied Rayon-Aquino’s application for relief and ordered him removed. Rayon-Aquino appealed the denial of his withholding claim related to child abuse. The BIA issued its own opinion and affirmed the IJ’s decision.1 Rayon-Aquino now brings a timely petition for review. II. When the BIA issues its own opinion, rather than summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, “we review the BIA’s opinion as the final agency determination.” Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688, 692 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009)). We review questions of law de novo but give “substantial deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and accompanying regulations.” Id. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Gaye v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 519, 525 (6th Cir. 2015). 1 The BIA determined that Rayon-Aquino had forfeited his claim for relief under the CAT and his claim for withholding of removal based on fear of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals