NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 17-3815 WILBUR RAMIREZ-PEREZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A205-986-790) Immigration Judge Rosalind K. Malloy Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 9, 2021 Before: AMBRO, MATEY, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 7, 2021) OPINION * AMBRO, Circuit Judge * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Wilbur Ramirez-Perez petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence, we deny the petition. 1 I. Ramirez-Perez is a Salvadoran native and citizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2005 or 2006. In 2013, his sister, who owns a small business in El Salvador, received phone calls from gang members demanding money. His sister decided not to pay the gang and went to the police instead, who arrested one of the gang members. Ramirez-Perez fears that, if he returns to El Salvador, the gang members who attempted to extort his sister will come after him because they will discover he recently returned to the country and erroneously believe he has lots of money. In June 2013, removal proceedings against Ramirez-Perez began. He thereafter applied for the relief noted above. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications in March 2017. The IJ found that Ramirez-Perez’s application for asylum was untimely. Ramirez-Perez argued “changed circumstances” excused the delay, but the IJ rejected this argument. The IJ also dismissed Ramirez-Perez’s remaining claims, determining that he failed to establish a clear probability that he would be persecuted based on a protected 1 Ramirez-Perez also filed a second petition for review under case number 19-2511. The two cases were consolidated and held in abeyance pending decisions in similar cases from our Court and the Supreme Court. In May 2021, the parties jointly moved to remand case number 19-2511 to the BIA in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz- Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). We will grant that motion under separate cover, and this opinion shall address solely the issues raised in case number 17-3815. 2 ground if he returned to El Salvador or that the Salvadoran government would acquiesce to any torture he might suffer. The BIA rejected his appeal, and he filed a timely petition for review. II. The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(e). We have jurisdiction over final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where, as here, the BIA adopts an IJ’s decision and adds analysis of its own, we review both decisions. See Sandie v. Att’y Gen., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir. 2009). We review legal conclusions anew, Cadapan v. Att’y …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals