Case: 16-60851 Document: 00514582731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 REVISED August 2, 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60851 FILED July 12, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce VICTOR REVENCU, Clerk Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HO, Circuit Judges. KING, Circuit Judge: Victor Revencu, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The immigration judge concluded—and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed—that Revencu had not demonstrated that he was persecuted on account of his actual or imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group. We DISMISS the petition for review with respect to Revencu’s arguments that we lack jurisdiction to review. In all other respects, the petition is DENIED. Case: 16-60851 Document: 00514582731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 No. 16-60851 I. Victor Revencu is a native and citizen of Moldova. In April 2010, he was removed to Moldova after attempting to enter the United States with an invalid B1/B2 visitor visa. About five years later, on May 9, 2015, Revencu illegally entered the United States. On the same day, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a decision to reinstate his April 2010 removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). However, Revencu was not immediately deported, as he expressed fear of returning to Moldova. After interviewing Revencu, an asylum officer found that Revencu had a reasonable fear of persecution in Moldova. Subsequently, Revencu submitted an application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and for protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In April 2016, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a hearing to determine the merits of his application. In a decision issued in June 2016, the IJ found that Revencu’s claim of fear of return to Moldova was based on four incidents. The first two involved only his then-future wife. The third and fourth involved Revencu himself and occurred in December 2014. On December 15, the police summoned him to the local station. At the station, several officers questioned Revencu. One officer stated that Revencu was seen driving people to various protests organized by Renato Usati, the leader of a recently formed opposition party. The officers demanded that Revencu tell them about Usati. Revencu denied knowledge of Usati, explaining that he was merely a bus driver and not a supporter of Usati. The officers then asked Revencu to join Usati’s party so that he could inform them about the party’s activities. Revencu told them that 1 As his removal order was reinstated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), Revencu is not eligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals