Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1697 _ SERGIO ALEJANDRO DE LEON, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent _ On Petition for Review of Final Orders from the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Judge: Honorable Daniel A. Morris (No. A073-537-059) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 7, 2019 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion file
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1697 _ SERGIO ALEJANDRO DE LEON, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent _ On Petition for Review of Final Orders from the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Judge: Honorable Daniel A. Morris (No. A073-537-059) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 7, 2019 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 18-1697
________________
SERGIO ALEJANDRO DE LEON,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
________________
On Petition for Review of Final Orders
from the Department of Homeland Security
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Judge: Honorable Daniel A. Morris
(No. A073-537-059)
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 7, 2019
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 27, 2019)
________________
OPINION*
________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Sergio De Leon entered the United States without inspection in the early 1990s.
He was apprehended in 2005 and removed to his native Guatemala. Several weeks later,
he made the trek back to the United States and crossed the border into Arizona. In 2014,
immigration authorities caught him once again and reinstated his first removal order.
Because he was subject to a reinstated order of removal, De Leon’s first task was
to demonstrate a “reasonable fear” of returning to Guatemala. See Bonilla v. Sessions,
891 F.3d 87, 90 (3d Cir. 2018). An asylum officer and an Immigration Judge both found
that De Leon lacked the “reasonable fear” required to reach the merits of his immigration
claims. This threshold finding also meant he could not appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1). As a result, he has petitioned for
review by our Court.
We dismiss that petition. To begin, De Leon’s appellate brief fails to challenge
the finding that he could relocate to Guatemala without any reasonable fear. Although he
fears gang activity in its capital, nothing is stopping him from returning safely to his
hometown of Salcaja. This waiver dooms the petition at the outset.
Instead, De Leon puts the cart before the horse by focusing his energies on why he
is entitled to asylum. But “aliens subject to reinstated removal orders,” as De Leon is
here, “are ineligible to apply for asylum.” Cazun v. Att’y Gen.,
856 F.3d 249, 251 (3d
Cir. 2017).
Thus we dismiss the petition for review.
2