NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3742 _____________ OSBELI LOPEZ-MONROY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No.: A089-006-588) Immigration Judge: Honorable Mirlande Tadal Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 14, 2018 Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 24, 2018) _________ O P I N I O N1 _________ RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Osbeli Lopez-Monroy, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his petitions for statutory withholding of removal and request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because Lopez-Monroy failed to state a cognizable particular social group (“PSG”) and the BIA’s conclusion that Lopez-Monroy failed to provide sufficient facts amounting to torture is supported by substantial evidence, we will affirm.2 I. Background3 Mr. Lopez-Monroy entered the United States in 2003 at the age of fifteen without inspection or admission. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued Lopez- Monroy a Notice to Appear commencing immigration removal proceedings. In 2017, Lopez-Monroy renewed his earlier effort to obtain statutory withholding of removal and protection under CAT. The IJ held a hearing to review the petitions. Lopez-Monroy testified at the hearing that he came to the United States from Guatemala, fleeing death threats from the 1 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal from the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 3 Because we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to explain our decision. 2 Villeda family “who have threatened [him] for [his] entire life.” A.R. 182. Lopez- Monroy’s mother also testified at the hearing about threats from the Villeda family. Lopez-Monroy called an expert witness to testify about the dangers in Guatemala. Lopez-Monroy’s written submission urged that “it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group if he [were] forced to return to Guatemala, namely, his status as ‘an individual whose family was targeted by a family of criminals,’” A.R. 621, and “[he] will face torture and severe human rights violations if he is returned to Guatemala,” A.R. 627. The IJ denied Lopez-Monroy’s petitions. She found that Lopez-Monroy failed to state a cognizable PSG with a “‘clear benchmark’ for the ‘outer limits’ of th[e] group.” A.R. 115. The IJ also found that, even assuming a cognizable social group existed, Lopez-Monroy failed to show past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. As for the CAT petition, the IJ found it was not likely that Lopez-Monroy would be subjected to torture if he returned to Guatemala. Mr. Lopez-Monroy ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals