NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-2329 _____________ RAMIRO AGUILAR-RIVERA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A076-497-710) Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye _____________________________________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 12, 2021 (Filed July 2, 2021) Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. _________ OPINION* ________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Ramiro Aguilar-Rivera seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.1 For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be denied in part and dismissed in part. I. Petitioner, a native of Mexico, first entered the United States on or about September 11, 1996. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) initiated removal proceedings on October 8, 1997 by filing a Notice to Appear, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained the removability charge and granted Petitioner voluntary departure. Petitioner returned to Mexico. Petitioner reentered the United States without inspection in February 2010. He was issued an expedited removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) on February 5, 2010 and was removed to Mexico. On July 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the proceedings in order to apply for asylum and withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C § 1231(b)(3), and protection pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner claimed that changed country 1 Petitioner captioned his motion as a “Motion to Reopen in Absentia Proceeding” but the BIA concluded that he was not ordered to be removed in absentia, so we will simply refer to his motion as a “motion to reopen removal proceedings.” R. 3 n.1. 2 conditions warranted reopening of his proceedings. Specifically, he asserted that following his expedited removal order in 2010, cartel violence increased in his home region of Mexico, and he and his family suffered harassment and persecution from Mexican drug cartels. Petitioner alleged Mexican customs officials turned him over to cartel members in 2011, who kidnapped him and tortured him, dislocated his arm, and broke his leg. He also claimed that his daughter was kidnapped by the cartel in 2013 and held for ransom, and that his son was beaten by a group of people the same year because of his relationship with Petitioner. In support, Petitioner submitted affidavits from his wife, aunt and brother-in-law explaining that he was kidnapped in November 2011, as well as a police report indicating his wife had reported him as missing in Mexico. He submitted a medical report from March 2012 that described a history of an elbow dislocation but “no evidence of an acute fracture or dislocation” and “chronic changes, probable [sic] from an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals