2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-27-2015

John Bellido Acuna v. Attorney General United

States

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This July is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"John Bellido Acuna v. Attorney General United States" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 797.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/797
PS2-180 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1048

___________

JOHN FERNANDO BELLIDO ACUNA

a/k/a JOHN BELLIDO

a/k/a JOHN ACUNA

a/k/a FERNANDO ACUNA, 

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A029-859-091)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 27, 2015

Before: AMBRO, VANASKIE and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 27, 2015)

___________

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.
2

John Bellido Acuna, a citizen of Peru, entered the United States without inspection 

in July 1981. In January 2013, the Government charged him as removable under 8 

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without having been admitted or paroled and 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a controlled substance 

violation (a 2005 cocaine possession offense in New Jersey). Bellido Acuna conceded 

the allegations and charges before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). R. 232-33. He sought 

asylum, withholding, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on 

the basis that he was harassed and attacked as a teenager after he recognized and 

identified a person who robbed a business where he worked. 

After a hearing, the IJ denied his applications for relief from removal. The IJ 

ruled that the asylum application was untimely (and that no exception applied) and that 

Bellido Acuna did not qualify for asylum anyway. The IJ noted that the uncorroborated 

claim was based on a fear of reprisal on the basis of a personal vendetta, not a protected 

ground, from an incident that occurred approximately 35 years ago. The IJ further stated 

that Bellido Acuna could relocate to avoid the threat. The IJ also rejected Bellido 

Acuna’s claims for withholding and CAT relief. The IJ also declined to issue voluntary 

departure in light of, inter alia, Bellido Acuna’s lengthy arrest record and several 

convictions.

Bellido Acuna took an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The 

BIA dismissed the appeal, concurring with the IJ that the asylum claim was untimely and 

had not established that he qualified for an exception to the one-year deadline. The BIA 
3

also ruled that Bellido Acuna did not establish that he qualified for withholding or 

protection under the CAT. The BIA rejected Bellido Acuna’s claim on appeal that the IJ 

should have granted a continuance while Bellido Acuna sought post-conviction relief for 

his cocaine conviction. The BIA also addressed Bellido Acuna’s “mentions” of 

cancellation of removal and a § 212(h) waiver, noting that his controlled substance 

conviction disqualified him from cancellation of removal, and that a § 212(h) waiver, 

standing alone, did not apply to an alien present without having been admitted or 

paroled.1 Lastly, the BIA stated that Bellido Acuna had not made a cogent challenge to 

the discretionary decision to deny voluntary departure and concurred with the IJ’s 

decision. 

Bellido Acuna presents a petition for review.2 Because his removal is based, in 

part, on a controlled substance violation, our jurisdiction is limited by the REAL ID Act; 

 

1 The BIA referred to a waiver under § 212(c), not § 212(h), but we assume that 

was a typographical error because former § 212(c) appears inapplicable in this case 

where Bellido Acuna’s conviction was in 2005. See Cespedes-Aquino v. Att’y Gen. of 

the U.S., 498 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 2007). In any event, Bellido Acuna does not present 

any argument to us about his eligibility for a § 212(h) waiver (perhaps because the waiver 

is available, under some circumstances, for “a single offense of simple possession of 30 

grams or less of marijuana,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), not for a cocaine offense like his). We 

note that arguments not raised in his brief are waived. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 

176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Al-Ra’Id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 31 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting 

that pro se litigants are not excepted from the requirement to raise and argue issues on 

appeal). 

2 He previously filed a motion for a stay of removal, which we denied. In his 

petition, he renews his request for a stay. He also seeks release on bond and asks us to 

issue an order to help him in his efforts to marry his fiancée. 
4

however, we retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims and questions of law. See

Pierre v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 528 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D)); cf. also Silva-Rengifo v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 473 F.3d 

58, 63 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Kamara v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 210-11 (3d 

Cir. 2005), for the proposition that the “jurisdictional grant regarding appeals by 

aggravated felons extends not just to legal determinations but also to application of law to 

facts”). We must dismiss this petition to the extent that Bellido Acuna presents issues 

outside these limits on our jurisdiction.

Bellido Acuna claims due process violations and raises questions of law, but none 

of the issues he raises is meritorious.3 To the extent that he claims that the Government 

did not meet its burden of proof to show that he was removable, we cannot consider the 

claim because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 

330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir. 2003). In any event, in a hearing before the IJ, he admitted 

the allegations and conceded the charges in his notice to appear. 

Despite Bellido Acuna’s claims to the contrary, the IJ used the proper standards 

for evaluating his CAT claims and the BIA used the right standards for reviewing the IJ’s 

rulings.4 Bellido Acuna also did not show that it would be more likely than not that he 

 

3 After he filed his informal brief, Bellido Acuna submitted a supplemental brief in 

which he largely repeats the arguments in his informal brief. The Government moves to 

strike the supplemental brief. We grant the motion, but we also note that our disposition 

of this petition would be the same if the supplemental brief were considered. 

4

It is not clear whether Bellido Acuna still pursues his asylum or withholding 

claims. Even if the claims are not waived, the denial of the asylum application on 

timeliness grounds is beyond review anyway. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Sukwanputra v. 
5

would be tortured if removed to Peru so as to entitle him to relief under the CAT. See

Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). 

Lastly, after reviewing Bellido Acuna’s claims of due process violations and the 

administrative record, we conclude that no due process violation occurred in the 

proceedings that the led to the agency’s rulings on his claims and his applications for 

discretionary relief.5 

 

Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627 (3d Cir. 2006). And Bellido Acuna simply did not show a “clear 

probability” that he would be persecuted in Peru on account of a protected ground such 

that he would be entitled to withholding of removal. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 

463, 469 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 

494-95 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining that ordinary criminal activity does not rise to the level 

of persecution); see also Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating that 

the “concept of persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as 

unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional”). We note that, at one point, in 

discussing Bellido Acuna’s applications for relief, the IJ stated that the claim seemed 

localized and there was no reason why Bellido Acuna could not relocate to another area 

in Peru. Whether an alien can relocate is not part of a prima facie case for relief; instead, 

it is something the Government can show to rebut a presumption of future persecution 

based on a showing of past persecution. See Gambashidze v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 187, 

191-93 (3d Cir. 2004). However, in this case, the IJ did not really misallocate the 

burdens of proof or require Bellido Acuna to show that he could not relocate. The IJ, 

after denying the asylum application on timeliness grounds, stated that Bellido Acuna 

“would also not qualify for asylum” because he did not show a reasonable possibility that 

he would be harmed in Peru (given the passage of time and a lack of evidence of any 

threat) and because his fear of harm was not related to a protected ground. The IJ held 

that the higher standard for withholding was not met, either. The incidental relocation 

discussion was not essential to the IJ’s rejections of the applications for relief. 

5 Bellido Acuna does not appear to renew his challenge to any denial of a 

continuance although he puts before us his arguments about his entitlement for state 

collateral relief on his conviction (the pursuit of which was the reason for the requested 

continuance). We do not review his underlying conviction. And even if he is seeking, in 

a roundabout way, to challenge the denial of the motion for a continuance, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider whether it was abuse of discretion. Rachak v. Att’y Gen. of the 
6

For these reasons, we dismiss Bellido Acuna’s petition to the extent we lack 

jurisdiction over his claims, and we otherwise deny it. We also deny Bellido Acuna’s 

renewed request for a stay of removal and his requests for other relief. 6

 

U.S., 734 F.3d 214, 216-17 (3d Cir. 2013). While we have suggested that a claim that an 

IJ erred by failing to grant a continuance might, in some instances, be construed as a due 

process claim, see Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157, 163 n.5 (3d Cir. 2009), we do not see 

such a claim here. 

6 As we noted above, we grant the Government’s motion to strike Bellido Acuna’s 

supplemental brief.