NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2375 ___________ TIEKU ANNOR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A203-298-017) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 28, 2020 Before: AMBRO, PORTER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed January 5, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Tieku Annor petitions for review of a final order of removal. For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the petition. Annor is a citizen of Ghana. He first entered the United States in 2008, and then traveled back and forth between Ghana and the United States several times. In 2018, when he attempted to enter the United States once more, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being inadmissible for seeking fraudulent admission and for not possessing valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) & (a)(7)(A)(i). Annor applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). During a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Annor conceded his removability and testified in support of his applications. He stated that, from 2000 to 2008, he had served as a bodyguard for former Ghanaian president Jerry Rawlings. In 2008, he was detained for three months and tortured; he did not detail who arrested him or for what purpose. He testified that he was arrested again in 2017 by the Delta Force (a group of special agents), held in an unmarked cell for seven days, and beaten, apparently in retaliation for his having worked for the former regime. * 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 IJ denied Annor’s claims, concluding that he had not testified credibly, he was subject to the persecutor bar,1 and he was not entitled to CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, concluded that Annor’s due- process rights had not been violated during the hearing, and dismissed the appeal. Annor filed a timely petition for review. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Briseno-Flores v. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 226, 228 (3d Cir. 2007). In cases like this one, where “our Court is called to evaluate an IJ’s credibility determination that has been adopted by the BIA, we do so with exceptional deference.” Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2017); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that the Court must uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). At the outset, Annor argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by denying him a fair hearing, failing to help him develop his case and consider his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals