ALD-074 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2016 ___________ PHENG KUANG NA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A088-646-122) Immigration Judge: Honorable Steven A. Morley ____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 December 19, 2019 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 13, 2020) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Pheng Kuang Na petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. The Government has filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that no substantial question is presented on appeal. For the following reasons, we will grant the Government’s motion and summarily deny the petition for review. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Na, an ethnic Chinese Christian native and citizen of Indonesia who entered the United States in 2005 on a valid non-immigrant visa, was charged with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), for remaining in the United States for a time longer than permitted. An Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability. In 2010, Na filed an application for asylum and for withholding of removal. He claimed that he had suffered past persecution as a Chinese Christian and feared that he would suffer persecution on account of his ethnicity and religion in the future. The IJ denied the asylum application as untimely because it was not filed within a year of Na’s arrival, and there were no extraordinary circumstances related to the delay. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(D). The IJ further determined that Na had failed to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal. The BIA dismissed his appeal, and Na filed a petition for review in which he argued that the Board made an impermissible factual finding in determining that his asylum application was not filed within a reasonable time. We granted the Government’s motion to remand. In March 2016, the Board again affirmed, agreeing with the IJ that Na had not met his burden to prove “extraordinary circumstances directly related to his failure to timely file his asylum application.” It also affirmed the IJ’s determination that the harm Na 2 suffered in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution, and that he failed to establish a clear probability he would suffer persecution if he returns to Indonesia. Na once again petitioned for review. We dismissed the petition to the extent Na challenged the Board’s disposition of his asylum application as untimely and otherwise denied the petition, finding that the agency’s denial of the withholding claim was supported by substantial evidence. See Na v. Att’y Gen., 665 F. App’x 178 (3d Cir. 2016). In particular, we found that substantial evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals