Celin Veliz Milian v. Attorney General United States

ALD-210 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1041 ___________ CELIN DARIO VELIZ MILIAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A087-595-837) Immigration Judge: Honorable Shifra Rubin ____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 4, 2022 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 17, 2022) _________ OPINION * _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Celin Dario Veliz Milian petitions for review of a final order of removal. Presently before the Court is a motion filed by the Government for summary disposition of the petition for review. For the foregoing reasons, we grant the Government’s motion and deny the petition for review. 1 Milian, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection in June 2007. The Government charged him as removable in 2010 for being present without having been admitted or paroled. Milian thereafter filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that he feared returning to Guatemala; he sought voluntary departure in the alternative. After a hearing before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), the IJ denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, and granted his application for voluntary departure. Regarding his asylum claim, the IJ concluded that Milian was not eligible for asylum because he failed to file his application within one year of entry. Regarding his withholding of removal claim, the IJ concluded that Milian failed to meet his burden to demonstrate past or future persecution and failed to demonstrate membership in a particular social group. Regarding CAT relief, the IJ concluded that 1 Although we have entertained the Government’s motion, we remind the Government that such a motion should typically be filed before the petitioner’s opening brief is due. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4(b). 2 Milian failed to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if he returned to Guatemala. Milian appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), challenging aspects of the IJ’s ruling on his withholding application. The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IJ’s decision regarding Milian’s withholding of removal claim and declined to consider the IJ’s decision regarding asylum and CAT relief, concluding that Milian failed to raise the issues on appeal and they were therefore waived. Milian filed a counseled petition for review in this Court. After he filed his opening brief, the Government filed a motion to summarily deny his petition. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Cruz v. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2006). We will take summary action if “no substantial question …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals