NOT P RE CEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

________ ___

No . 1 9

- 3 9 9 0

___________

F R E D Y M A R I O N Y A L V A R A D O

- C A L D E R O N

,

a / k / a Eduardi Calderon

, a

/ k / a Estuardo C alderon

,

a / k / a Ignacio Velasquez

, a

/ k / a Estuardo Soto

- Lopez,

P etitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL U NITE D STATES OF AMERICA

__ ________________________________ __

On Petiti o n for Revi ew of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agenc y No. A 0 7 8

- 1 7 1

- 9 4 5 )

Immigration Judge: Honorable A u d r a B e h n e

________________ __ __________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34. 1(a)

A u g u s t 1 0

, 2 0 2 0

Before: A M B R O

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. a n d P O R T E R

, Circuit J udges

(Opini o n filed : August 12, 2020 )

________ ___

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opin ion of t he full C ourt and pursuan t to I.O.P. 5. 7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

F r e d y M a r i o n y A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ( C a l d e r o n )

, procee di ng pro se, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of I mmigration Appeals (BIA) d i s m i s s i n g h i s a p p e a l

f r o m t h e I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( I J ) o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s applic ation for withholding of

removal and protection under the Conv ention Ag ainst Torture (CA T). For the reasons

that follow, we will dismiss t h e p e t i t i o n i n p a r t a n d d e n y i t i n p a r t

.

As the parties are well

- aware of th e facts, we will only describe them here bri e fly.

A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n

, a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f G u a t e m a l a

, e n t e r e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y

i n 1 9 9 6

. A f

t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n i n N e w J e r s e y f o r s h o p l i f t i n g i n 2 0 0 0

, h e r e t u r n e d t o

G u a t e m a l a ; b u t h e w a s a p p r e h e n d e d a y e a r l a t e r a s h e a t t e m p t e d t o r e

- e n t e r t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s

. I n 2 0 0 1

, h e w a s c h a r g e d w i t h r e m o v a b i l i t y pursu ant t o 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( i )

, a s a n a l i e n p r e s e n t w i t h o u t a d m i s s i o n

. A n I J o r d e r e d h i m r e m o v e d i n

a b s e n t i a

. 1 B e t w e e n 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 6

, h e w a s c o n v i c t e d i n N e w J e r s e y a n d P e n n s y l v a n i a o f

n u m e r o u s o f

f e n s e s r a n g i n g f

r o m shoplif

ting t o s i m p l e a s s a u l t

. H e w a s r e m o v e d p u r s u a n t

t o t h e p r i o r r e m o v a l o r d e r i n 2 0 0 7

.

A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n r e

- e n t e r e d the U n i t e d S t a t e s a g a i n i n 2 0 0 8 ; t h a t s a m e y e a r

, h e

w a s c o n v i c t e d o f b a t t e r y i n I l l i n o i s

. H e r e t u r n e d t o G u a t e m a l a i n 2 0 0 9

, w h e r e h e w a s

c o n v i c t e d o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n 2 0 1 1

, a n d

, a y e a r l a t e r

, h e w a s a r r e s t e d f o r e x t o r t i o n

.

I n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

, h e a d m i t t e d l y s h o t h i s c o u s i n M a n u e l i n t h e b a c k a n d M a n u e l ’ s s o n

,

1 The G overnment maintains that A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n w a s r e m o v e d p u r s u a n t t o t h a t o r d e r

i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 , and that he re

- ent ered the United States s o m e t i m e t h e r e a f t e r ; however,

t h e record is unclear on thi s point

.3

C a r l o s M a n u e l

, i n t h e c h e s t

. C a r l o s M a n u e l d i e d f i v e d a y s l a t e r

. T w o m o n t h s l a t e r

, h e

l e f t Gua temala a n d entered the U n i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y f o r t h e f i n a l t i m e

. T h e r e i s a n

o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t i n G u a t e m a l a f o r A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ’ s a r r e s t f o r m u r d e r and

a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r

.

A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n w a s d e t a i n e d b y U

. S

. immigration a u t h o r i t i e s i n J u l y 2 0 1 7

,

a n d h i s p r i o r o r d e r o f r e m o v a l w a s r e i n s t a t e d

. H e w a s convict ed i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f

o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Maryl and i n M a r c h 2 0 1 8 o f i l l e g a l r e

- e n t r y i n v i o l a t i o n

o f 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6

, f

o r w h i c h h e w a s s entenced t o t w o y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. I n 2 0 1 9

,

u p o n r e l e a s e i n t o c u s t o d y w i t h t h e I m m i g r a t i o n a n d C u s t o m s E n f o r c e m e n t ( I C E ) A g e n c y

,

h e e x p r e s s e d a f

e a r o f h a r m i f h e w a s r e t u r n e d t o G u a t e m a l a

, a n d h i s case was referred to

an I J f o r withholding

- o n l y removal p r o c e e d i n g s

. See 8 C. F.R. § 1208.31 ( c )

, (e)

.

A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n f

i l e d a n application f

o r withholding of removal under t h e

I m m i g r a t i o n a n d Nationality A c t ( I N A )

, 8 U. S.C. § 1231(b)(3)

, and withholding or

deferral of r emoval under the Convention Against To rture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §

120 8.17(a)

.

A t a h e a r i n g b e f

o r e t h e I J

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w i l l b e s u b

j e c t t o

t o r t u r e b y h i s u n c l e o r h i s c o u s i n M a n u e l i f h e i s r e t u r n e d t o G u a t e m a l a

. H e m a i n t a i n e d

t h a t h i s u n c l e w a n t s t o h a r m h i m b e c a u s e o f a l o n g

- r u n n i n g f a m i l y d ispute

, a n d M a n u e l

w a n t s t o h a r m h i m f

o r k i l l i n g h i s s o n C a r l o s

. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s r e l a t i v e s h a v e u s e d

t h e i r G o v e r n m e n t c o n n e c t i o n s t o h a v e f a l s e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t4

h i m

, i n c l u d i n g t h e o u t s t a n d i n g m u r d e r and a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r c h a r g e s

. 2 H e c l a i m s t h a t i f

h e i s r e t u r n e d t o G u a t e m a l a t o f a c e t h o s e c h a r g e s

, h i s c o u s i n o r u n c l e w i l l p a y o r u s e t h e i r

i n f l u e n c e w i t h t h e p o l i c e t o g a i n a c c e s s t o A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n s o t h e y c a n h a r m h i m

.

T h e I J d e t e r m i n e d t h a t A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a s s a u l t a n d b a t t e r y

w e r e “ p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i o u s c r i m e s

, ” a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, h e w a s s t a t u t o r i l y i n e l i g i b l e f o r

withholding of removal under t h e I N A and under the CAT

. A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, t h e I J

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h a r m A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n f e a r e d w a s n o t o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o t e c t e d

g r o u n d

, b u t r a t h e r t h e r e s u l t o f a family d i s p u t e

, a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, d i d n o t p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r

w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l u n d e r t h e I N A

. T h e I J a l s o f o u n d t h a t A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n h a d

n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t h e w o u l d s u f f e r t o r t u r e b y o r w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o r a c q u i e s c e n c e o f

G u a t e m a l a n o f

f i c i a l s

, a s r e q u i r e d f

o r w i t h h o l d i n g o r p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r t h e C A T

.

O n a p p e a l t o t h e B I A

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e

f o r particula rly s e r i o u s c r i m e s

, a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, t h e B o a r d d e e m e d a n y c h a l l e n g e t o t h a t

d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s w a i v e d

. T h e B o a r d q u i c k l y d i s p e n s e d w i t h a c h a l l e n g e t h a t t h e

i n t e r p r e t e r w a s b i a s e d a n d m i s i n t e r p r e t e d A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, f i n d i n g n o

f a c t u a l b a s i s t o s u p p o r t i t

. T h e B I A o t h e r w i s e a d o p t e d a n d a f f i r m e d t h e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n a n d

d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l

. A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n f i l e d t h i s t i m e l y petiti on f

o r r e v i e w

.

2 According to Alvarado

- Calderon ’ s testim ony, Carlos was kill ed by a poisonous bullet

shot fr om Manuel ’ s gun , a nd not by the bu ll et from his gu n which struck Car los in the

chest.5

We have jurisdiction to review final orde rs of th e BIA purs uant t o 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. When, as here, the BIA affirmed and part ially reiterated the IJ' s dis c ussions and

determinations, we review both decisions. See Sandie v

. Att'y Gen. , 562 F. 3d 246, 250

(3d Cir. 20 09). We review the a gency's findings u n d e r t h e subst antial

- evidence s t a n d a r d

p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h “ [ t ] h e a g e n c y ’ s f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a r e c o n c l u s i v e u n l e s s a n y r e a s o n a b l e

a d j u d i c a t o r w o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n t r a r y

. ” N a s r a l l a h v B a r r

, 1 4 0 S

.

C t

. 1 6 8 3

, 1 6 9 2 ( 2 0 2 0 )

.

A s noted by the BIA, Alva r a d o

- Calderon did not contest the IJ’s determination

that he was convicted of a “particul arly se rio us crim e” and t h a t h e w a s

, th e r e f o r e

,

ineligible for withhold ing of removal u n d e r e i t h e r t h e I N A o r t h e C A T ; he w a s

p o t e n t i a l l y e l i g i b l e o n l y for deferral of removal under the CAT. See 8 U.S.C.

§ § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); 8 U.S .C. § 1231(b)(3) ; 8 C.F.R. § 120 8.16(d). To t h e e x t e n t

t h a t h i s i n f

o r m a l b r i e f c a n b e construed t o c h a l l e n g e h i s w i t h h o l d i n g c l a i m u n d e r t h e

C A T

, 3 w e w i l l d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n for lack of jurisdiction

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);

Castro v. Att’y Gen. , 671 F .3d 356, 365 (3 d Cir. 2012) (noting that this Court generally

lacks jurisdicti on to conside r any issues not raised before the Board )

.

To e s t a b l i s h h i s c l a i m f

o r d e f e r r a l o f r e m o v a l u n d e r t h e C A T

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n

h ad to s h o w that he is “more likely than n ot” to be tortu red “by or a t the i nsti gation of or

3 Alvarado

- Calderon d oes not challenge h is withholding claim under the INA, and he

challenges the denial of “ CAT ” relief only generall y.6

with the conse nt or acquies cence of” a G u a t e m a l an p ublic o fficial. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) ; § 1208.18( a)(1); Sevoian v. Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 166, 1 7 4

- 7 5 (3d Cir.

2002)

. A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n w a s requ ired to e stablish his entitlement to reli ef by objective,

not subje ctive, evidence. Kam ara v. Att’y Gen. , 420 F.3d 202, 213 (3d Ci r. 2005).

S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e d e n i a l o f C A T r e l i e f

.

T h e I J d e t e r m i n e d t h a t A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e G u a t e m a l a n

G o v e r n m e n t w o u l d b r e a c h i t s l e g a l responsibi lity t o p r e v e n t h i s t o r t u r e

. See Silva

Rengifo v. Att’y Gen. , 4 73 F.3d 58, 69, 70 (3d Cir. 2007)

. A s t h e I J n o t e d

, t h e 2 0 1 7

H u m a n R i g h t s R e p o r t ( H R R e p o r t ) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e w a s p o l i c e c o r r u p t i o n i n

G u a t e m a l a

, b u t t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a d t a k e n m e a s u r e s t o c o m b a t i t

, i n c l u d i n g t h r o u g h

it s O f f i c e o f P r o f

e s s i o n a l R es ponsibility ( O R P )

, w h i c h c o n d u c t s i n t e r n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f

s e c u r i t y a b u s e s b y o f

f i c e r s

. A

. R

. a t 5 5

- 5 6

, 6 0

. T h e O R P r e p o r t e d t hat c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t

p o l i c e f o r extortion a n d a b u s e o f a u t h o r i t y w e r e d o w n s i g n i f i c a n t l y

. 4 A

. R

. a t 6 0

. T h e

4 Contrary to Alva r a d o

- Calderon ’ s contention , t he IJ consider e d that he filed a c omplaint

with the O R P alleging that officers had b e aten him while he was deta i ned on t he

extortion charges. He testified that he was told that the officers would be fired, b ut he

be li eves th ey were only tr ansferred because he saw them i n a di ff erent l ocat ion

. ( See H R

Report at 6, A.R. at 55, noting that the po lice “ routinely trans ferred officers suspecte d of

wrong doing rather than investi gating them. ” ). He admitted, however, that h e did not

know whether th e officers were di sciplined

. C f. Gomez

- Zuluaga v. Att ’ y Gen. , 527 F.3d

330, 351 (3d Cir. 2008) ( explain ing that where police r epeatedly ignore reports filed by

the alien concerning violence and threats, this could constitut e willful blindness ). The IJ

co ncl uded that

, ass uming th at the allegations agains t the of f icers were true, the record

evidence indicates that the y were rogue officers whose actions were the working s o f

criminal elements withi n Gua temal a and not the Gua t em alan government.7

a r t i c l e s t h a t A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n s u b m i t t e d w e r e a l s o f o u n d t o d e m o n s t r a t e

, l i k e t h e

R e p o r t

, t h a t t h e G u a t e m a l a n p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t e c r i m e s a n d a r r e s t s u s p e c t s i n c r i m i n a l

c a s e s

. I J O p

. a t 1 0

. A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n s p e c u l a t e d t h a t h i s r e l a t i v e s h a d p a i d p o l i c e t o

a r r e s t a n d d e t a i n h i m i n t h e p a s t

, b u t h e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n y s u p p ort for this claim

, a n d

t h e r e c o r d u n d e r m i n e s i t

. 5 F o r e x a m p l e

, d e s p i t e h i s c l a i m t h a t h i s c o u s i n M a n u e l p a y s t o

i n f l u e n c e t h e p o l i c e

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n a d m i t t e d t ha t b o t h h e a nd M a n u e l ’ s s o n C a r l o s

w e r e a r r e s t e d a f

t e r a n a l t e r c a t i on

, a n d t h a t C a r l o s w a s r e qu i r e d t o p a y h i m f o r d a m a g e s t o

h i s p r o pe r t y

. S e e A

. R

. a t 1 5 5

- 1 5 6

. M o r e o v e r

, a s t h e I J f o u n d

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ’ s

criminal h i s t o r y a n d t h e a r t i c l e s h e s u b m i t t e d i n d i c a t e t h a t h i s p r i o r a r r e s t s a n d c r i m i n a l

c h a r g e s a p p e a r l e g i t i m a t e

. I d

. at 10

- 11. I n p a r t i c u l a r

, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y

t h a t h e s h o t C a r l o s M a n u e l i n t h e c h e s t a n d l e f t G u a t e m a l a t w o m o n t h s l a t e r

, c o u p l e d

w i t h h i s a d m i s s i o n t h a t h e m a y h a v e c a u s e d C a r l o s ’ s d e a t h

, l e d t h e I J t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e

o u t s t a n d i n g m u r d e r c h a r g e s w e r e n o t t h e product o f c o r r u p t activities b y G u a t e m a l a n

o f f i c i a l s

. T h e B I A a g r e e d w i t h th e I J t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t A l v a r a d o

5 Alvarado

- Ca lderon also maint ained that h e was raped and beate n by inmates while in

prison on the extortion charges

. He asserts t hat he co ntracted HIV as a result of th e

sexual assault. He testi fied that the assault was orchestra ted b y O t o F r a n c i s c o

, an

employee of h i s uncle

, w h o wa s facing attem pted murder charge s

. Alvar a do

- Calderon

was s cheduled to testify a gainst Fra ncisco, and the attac k was allege dly done to

inti midate him and keep him from t estifying

. The IJ not ed that this assa ult w as

committed by private , no t government acto rs

, an d the re is nothing in the r ecord indicat ing

that Alvarado

- Calderon reported th e assau lt to the authoriti es ; indeed, when he was

released, he filed the complaint with ORP against the officers but he di d not mention the

se xual assault.8

C a l d e r o n w o u l d l i k e l y b e t o r t u r e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i m p e n d i n g p o s s i b l e a r r e s t i n

G u a t e m a l a

. T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l a different c o n c l u s i o n

.

Finally, A l v a r a d o

- C a l d e r o n a lleg es generally t h a t the B I A wa s biased agains t him

.

See Wang v. A tt’y Gen. , 4 23 F.3d 260, 269 (3d Cir. 2005) ( “[N]o person [may ] be

deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case

with assurance that the arbiter is not predispos ed to find against him.” )

. T h e r e i s n o b a s i s

t o suppo rt a clai m of bias. See Liteky v . United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (19 94 ). 6

B a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g

, w e w i l l d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r review t o t he e x t e n t w e

l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n

, a n d w i l l d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s

.

6 A lvarado

- Cald eron did not r aise any issue in h is brief with respect to his allegation of

misinterpretati on or bias on the p art of the i nterprete r

. See Khan v. Att’y Gen. , 691 F.3d

488, 495 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012) (an “issue is waived unless a party raises it in its openi ng brief”) ; see al so Fed. R. A pp. P . 28(a)(8)

. In any event, we agree with the BIA tha t the

record d oes not sup port such a claim.