NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2995 ___________ KESNEL SAINT FORT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A209-866-636) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 19, 2019 Before: GREENAWAY, Jr., RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 12, 2019) ___________ 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. Kesnel Saint Fort, a citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a final order of removal. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition. After living in Brazil for approximately three years, Saint Fort arrived in the United States in 2016. The Government charged him with removability as an arriving alien with no valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Based on his experiences in both Haiti and Brazil, Saint Fort applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge denied relief on May 24, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding as it pertained to Haiti. But the Board also concluded that “the record is not adequate for appellate review with respect to [Saint Fort’s] claimed fear of torture in Haiti or Brazil or his claimed past persecution and fear of future persecution in Brazil for withholding of removal purposes.” Accordingly, the BIA remanded the matter to the IJ for development of the record and consideration of those issues. On remand, Saint Fort provided additional testimony and submitted current country reports. On April 17, 2018, the IJ again denied relief. 1 In an order dated August 29, 2018, the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision, and dismissed the appeal. Saint Fort filed a pro se petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Because the BIA adopted the findings of the IJ and also commented on the sufficiency of the IJ’s determinations, we 1 Saint Fort filed a petition for review of the IJ’s decision. In response, the Government filed a motion to dismiss, which we granted. See C.A. No. 18-1998 (order entered August 2, 2018). 2 review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2004). Our review of these decisions is for substantial evidence, considering whether they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). The decisions must be affirmed “unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 484 (3d Cir. 2001)). To establish eligibility for asylum, Saint ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals