NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1979 ___________ VOCKNAL PAUL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A203-608-138) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 7, 2021 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 29, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Vocknal Paul, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. In July 2019, Paul, a citizen of Haiti, was placed in removal proceedings for being present without admission or parole, and as an applicant for admission who lacked a valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Paul admitted the allegations; conceded removability; and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The IJ denied all relief after a hearing at which Paul testified about the loss of his parents in the devastating earthquake of 2010 and his other experiences, including an attack in which he was stabbed and robbed as a homeless youth on the streets of Haiti. Although the IJ found Paul’s testimony credible, he ruled that Paul was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because the group “Haitian homeless” did not meet the particularity requirement for a social group because it was “vast, diffuse, and amorphous.” (IJ Op. at 7). The IJ explained that such a group “would encompass individuals of any gender, any age and persons from varying backgrounds in Haiti and varying capacities to change their situation,” and noted as an example that “an individual 2 could be homeless as a result of economic circumstances, illness or fractured family ties.” (Id.).1 The IJ also ruled that the experiences Paul described did not constitute torture under the CAT standard. The BIA summarily affirmed and dismissed the appeal. Paul filed a timely petition for review to this Court.2 We have jurisdiction to review final orders of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “If the BIA summarily affirms an IJ’s order, we review the IJ’s decision as the final administrative determination.” En Hui Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence, considering whether it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision must be affirmed “unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals