Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-4-2006
Marin v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2727
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Marin v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1796.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1796
This decision 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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 04-2727
__________
HENRY MARIN,
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,1
Attorney General of the United States,
U.S. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS;
USCIS DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
Respondents.
__________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A95-429-651)
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 5, 2005
__________
Before: RENDELL, FISHER, VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 4, 2006)
1
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been substituted for former Attorney General
John Ashcroft, the original respondent in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c).
1
__________
OPINION
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Henry Marin appeals from the Final Order of Removal of the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirming a decision by the immigration judge denying
Marin’s Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. We conclude that Marin
did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his political opinions, and we will therefore affirm the Board’s order.2
Marin was a Colombian national who entered the United States in March 2001 on
a non-immigrant visa that authorized him to remain for a temporary period and depart no
later than August 30, 2001. As is perhaps obvious, Marin overstayed his visa. He now
relies upon three threatening phone calls made to him at various times while he was in
Colombia as the basis for his claim of persecution and fear of future persecution.
In December 1997 and January 1998, Marin received phone calls related to a
contract dispute involving the telecommunication company for which he worked. Three
years later, in January 2001, Marin received another threatening phone call in which
guerrillas demanded confidential information concerning his company’s customers. The
2
We have jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
2
immigration judge questioned whether such threats were the true reason Marin left
Columbia, but concluded that even if they were, they were not based upon any of the five
grounds for asylum enumerated in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). See
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000) (defining a “refugee” as a person who is “unable or
unwilling” to return to his or her country of origin “because of persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion”).
We review the immigration judge’s determination, which is the final agency
decision here, for substantial evidence, treating the immigration judge’s findings as
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404
(3d Cir. 2005).
We have little difficulty in denying the petition for review because, as determined
by the immigration judge, Marin offers no basis for a finding of past persecution, nor of
future persecution, let alone any finding that such adversity was or would be visited upon
him for one of the five enumerated grounds. The immigration judge denied the
application for asylum, and similarly denied withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. We conclude that this determination was supported by
substantial evidence in view of the lack of evidence of any persecution.
Marin also alleges that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated his due process
3
rights and abused its discretion by affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
determination. We find that these arguments lack merit, see Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d
228, 239-43 (3d Cir. 2003), and will accordingly DENY the petition for review.
______________________
4