Caal-Mo v. Attorney General United States, 012218 FED3, 17-1750
|Opinion Judge:||STEARNS, DISTRICT JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||ANDRES CAAL-MO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent|
|Judge Panel:||Before: JORDAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS , District Judge.|
|Case Date:||January 22, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 9, 2018
On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA A205-526-197) Immigration Judge: Hon. Rosalind K. Malloy
Before: JORDAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS [*] , District Judge.
STEARNS, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Petitioner Andres Caal-Mo appeals a ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) determination that he is ineligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)1. We discern no error.
Caal-Mo, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in April of 2007. On December 5, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ordered him to appear before an Immigration Judge. On November 5, 2013, petitioner appeared with counsel and conceded removability; however, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and a deferral of removal under CAT. Caal-Mo's application for protection was based on a series of apparently threatening letters, text messages, and telephone calls received by Caal-Mo and his girlfriend from unknown persons in Guatemala.
On March 10, 2016, the IJ entered an oral decision denying Caal-Mo's applications and ordering his removal to Guatemala. With respect to the CAT claim (the only issue raised in this appeal), the IJ found that Caal-Mo had "failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Guatemala for any reason by anyone." (Certified Admin. Record at 67). The BIA agreed, discerning "no clear error" in the IJ's findings "that the threats received by [petitioner] and [his girlfriend] were from anonymous sources" and that "the threatening communications were unclear regarding the anonymous sources' motivations for targeting" petitioner. (Certified Admin. Record at 4). In dismissing the appeal, the BIA found that "[i]nsofar as [Caal-Mo] has not demonstrated the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP