Sorto Bonilla v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-2324 _____________ SORTO BONILLA a/k/a Abilio Sorto Bonilla, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of Orders From The Department of Homeland Security and The Executive Office for Immigration Review Agency No. A200-771-350 Immigration Judge: Honorable John B. Carle ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 15, 2018 ______________ Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 15, 2018) ______________ OPINION * * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ______________ 2 SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Abilio Sorto Bonilla petitions for review of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination, in a reasonable fear proceeding, that he was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Sorto Bonilla argues that his due process rights were violated because the IJ conducted the proceeding without his counsel. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. I Sorto Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, first attempted to enter the United States illegally in 2010. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) deemed him inadmissible and he was removed to El Salvador. He returned to the United States shortly thereafter without inspection or permission. In May 2017, Sorto Bonilla was arrested and found to be the subject of a removal order. He expressed a fear of persecution or torture if returned to El Salvador and was referred to a United States Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) asylum officer for an interview to determine whether his fears were reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(a)-(b). Sorto Bonilla met with an asylum officer on four occasions. The first three meetings ended before the reasonable fear interview began because Sorto Bonilla stated he wanted his attorney present. At the fourth meeting, with his attorney present via telephone, Sorto Bonilla sat for a full reasonable fear interview. Sorto Bonilla told the asylum officer that he was afraid to return to El Salvador because he had been extorted by a gang there, and gang members attempted to recruit him because they thought he had received money from his family in the United States. Sorto Bonilla said the gang 3 members never physically harmed or threatened him and he did not report these incidents to the police, but he was afraid of being robbed or harmed by gang members on account of his “political beliefs”—as an individual returning from the United States—and because he has light skin color. A.R. 47. At the end of the interview, the asylum officer summarized Sorto Bonilla’s claim, which he and his attorney confirmed, and Sorto Bonilla’s attorney reiterated only that the gang targeted him for money because he came from and has family ties in the United States, and “because of his color.” A.R. 50. The asylum officer issued a negative reasonable fear determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(f). The officer concluded Sorto Bonilla had testified credibly, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals