NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-2589 ______________ AMILCAR MENJIVAR UMANA, a/k/a Amilcar Umana Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (Agency No. A094-392-402) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ______________ Argued on May 27, 2021 ______________ Before: MCKEE, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 26, 2021) Alyssa M. Kane [ARGUED] ALDEA – THE PEOPLE’S JUSTICE CENTER 532 Walnut Street Reading, PA 19601 Counsel for Petitioner Amilcar Antonio Menjivar-Umana John V. Coghlan Stephen J. Flynn Ann M Welhaf [ARGUED] Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent Attorney General United States of America _______________ OPINION* _______________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Amilcar Menjivar Umana petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Due to intervening changes in applicable immigration cases by the Attorney General, we will vacate the Board’s prior decision and remand this case for further proceedings. Menjivar Umana is a 42-year-old Salvadoran citizen who first came to this country in 2000. He maintained temporary protected status for more than a decade, but lost it following a number of arrests for driving under the influence, and was first removed to El Salvador in 2013. He subsequently returned to this country and was deported on two other occasions, but later reentered unlawfully in May 2015. He was later detained, and a prior removal order against him was reinstated. He sought relief from this order in the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 form of withholding of removal1 and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.2 Menjivar Umana claimed that if he were again removed to El Salvador, he would be targeted by gang members who had previously tried to extort money from him. As additional support for his claims, he testified that gang members had later severely beaten his brother and may have been responsible for the murder of his father. He believed they may do similar things to him if he were removed. An immigration judge denied relief. In addition to finding that Menjivar Umana had not suffered past persecution and had failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution, it also concluded that his two proposed “particular social groups” were not cognizable under then-governing law.3 Relying in part on Matter of L-E-A-, the Immigration Judge found that one proposed particular social group, immediate family members of his father, was insufficiently socially distinct in Salvadoran society.4 It also found that under Matter of A-B-, Menjivar Umana could not show a nexus, or link, between the harm he alleged gang members might inflict on him and his membership in a 1 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). 2 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals