NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 18-1420 _______________ VARLEY RAMOS COSTA, AKA Varley Costa; SUELI GOMES CORREA COSTA, AKA Sueli Costa, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A213-090-873 & A213-090-874) Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars Q. Golparvar _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 14, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 12, 2018) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Though aliens may reasonably fear foreign prisons, ordinarily they may not invoke that fear as a ground to remain here. Varley and Sueli Costa entered the United States illegally and are removable. They both applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. They have shown that they will likely be imprisoned in Brazil and that Brazilian prisoners are often abused. But they cannot show that they belong to a particular social group. Their claimed group (Brazilian prisoners and detainees) does not qualify because it is neither socially distinct nor defined by a shared immutable char- acteristic. And the Costas cannot show that they are more likely than not to be tortured. So we will deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND Because its findings are plausible (indeed, persuasive), we accept the facts as found by the agency under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The Costas are a married couple and are Bra- zilian citizens by birth. They entered the United States illegally. More than a decade later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained them and charged them as remov- able because they entered illegally. The Costas learned to their surprise that they are wanted for murder in Brazil. Brazilian authorities had issued arrest warrants and Interpol red notices for both of them. The Costas deny any involvement in the murder. But they fear that, upon returning to Brazil, they will be imprisoned and tortured. So the Costas applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In a joint decision that addressed the claims of both Costas, 2 the Immigration Judge denied the Costas’ applications. They appealed to the Board of Im- migration Appeals, raising the same claims and also claiming that the Judge erred by con- sidering their applications jointly. The Board dismissed their appeal, reasoning that the Costas were not members of a particular social group, had not shown a likelihood of per- secution, and had not shown that Brazil would likely torture them. And the Board held that, while the Judge had erred by considering their applications jointly, that error was harmless. The Costas now petition for review, raising the same arguments. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo while according them Chevron deference. Huang v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals