ALD-018 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2277 ___________ WILMER NOEL MATAMOROS RIVERA, AKA Noe Garcia Mora, AKA Wilmer N. Rivera, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-017-099) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ____________________________________ Submitted on the Government’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 25, 2018 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 6, 2018) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Wilmer Noel Matamoros Rivera petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal. The Government has moved for summary action, arguing that no substantial question is presented on appeal. We will grant the Government’s motion and summarily deny the petition for review. Matamoros Rivera, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection. In April 2012, the Government charged Matamoros Rivera with removability for being present in this country without being admitted or paroled. See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)]. Matamoros Rivera appeared with counsel before an Immigration Judge (IJ) in August 2012, conceded removability, and indicated that he would apply for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The next hearing was postponed three times, until March 2015, at which time Matamoros Rivera submitted his withholding and CAT protection applications, expressing a fear that gang members in his home country would harm him because he refused to pay a “war tax.” The IJ scheduled the next hearing for May 25, 2017. On that date, Matamoros Rivera appeared before the IJ and testified in support of his applications. The IJ also denied Matamoros Rivera’s requests for relief, concluding that he was not credible and that, alternatively, he did not qualify for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. Matamoros Rivera appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals assumed that Matamoros Rivera testified credibly, but agreed with the IJ that he failed to demonstrate that the gang targeted him on account of a protected 2 ground and failed to establish that he was more likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official in Honduras.1 Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeal. This timely petition for review followed. We generally have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under INA § 242(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)]. We review the agency’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard, but must uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)]; see also Mendoza-Ordonez v. Att’y Gen., 869 F.3d 164, 169 (3d Cir. 2017). Matamoros Rivera’s counseled brief does not directly challenge the Board’s conclusion that he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals