Situ Wilkinson v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 21-3166 _______________ SITU KAMU WILKINSON, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-647-581) Immigration Judge: Robert M. Lewandowski _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 23, 2022 Before: McKEE, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 19, 2022 ) _______________ OPINION * _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Not all foreigners who have suffered abroad count as refugees. To qualify, they must show that they have suffered because they belong to a well-defined, socially recognized group. But “people who have filed complaints against Trinidadian police” is not socially * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. distinct enough to count as such a group. We will thus dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Situ Wilkinson is from Trinidad and Tobago. In 2003, while looking for someone else, police came to the house where he was staying and beat, robbed, and threatened to kill him. When he first reported this to local police, the intake officer dismissed his account. He later learned the names of the officers involved, went to the capital city, and filed a formal com- plaint. In response, the police stopped him on the street, hit him with a gun, fired shots near him, and brought him to the station. There, they threatened to kill him unless he stopped complaining about them. So he agreed and laid low. A few weeks later, Wilkinson came to America on a tourist visa but overstayed. He built a life here and fathered a U.S.-citizen son. His son, now eight, suffers from asthma, eczema, and behavioral issues. Though the son lives with his mother, Wilkinson supports him financially and spends quality time with him. In 2019, Wilkinson was arrested for selling crack cocaine, and immigration authorities began proceedings to deport him. He conceded that he was deportable, but sought cancel- lation or withholding of removal. For cancellation, he needed to show that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his son. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). An immigration judge found that he could not do so. For withholding of removal, he needed to show that if he returned to Trinidad, his “life or freedom would be threatened” there because of his “membership in a particular social group.” § 1231(b)(3)(A). Again, the im- migration judge found that he could not make that showing. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s decision without issuing an opinion. 2 Wilkinson first argues that the hardship his son faces is indeed exceptional. But that decision is discretionary, so we lack jurisdiction to review it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022); Hernandez-Morales v. Att’y Gen., 977 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2020). Because we cannot reach the merits of Wilkinson’s cancel- …

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