Carmen Cuc-Tiul v. Attorney General United States of America

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: 25-1413
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1413

CARMEN CUC-TIUL, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________________________

On Petition for Review of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge John B. Carle, No. A215-709-545

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges Submitted: Apr. 22, 2026; Filed: Apr. 22, 2026 _____________________________

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION*

BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Carmen Cuc-Tiul lived with her boyfriend in Guatemala. He

threatened her, beat her, and “kicked [her] out of the house.” AR 120. So she came to the

United States illegally, was caught, and was put into removal proceedings. The immigration

judge denied her claims of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Con-

vention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, dismissing her ap-

peal. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal rulings

de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chavez-Chilel v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 20 F.4th 138, 142 n.3

(3d Cir. 2021).

* This is not an opinion of the full Court and, under 3d Cir. IOP 5.7, is not binding precedent. Before the Board and to us, the only particular social group that Cuc-Tiul claims to be

a part of is “Guatemalan women.” Petitioner’s Br. 9. But we have already rejected that

proposed group as amorphous and overbroad. Chavez-Chilel, 20 F.4th at 146. Cuc-Tiul

asks us to “re-visit” that conclusion, but we are bound by a prior panel’s precedential opin-

ion. Pet’r’s Br. 9; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.1. In any event, the Board and immigration judge found

that Cuc-Tiul had suffered domestic abuse not because she was a Guatemalan woman but

because of personal animus and her boyfriend’s criminality. Cuc-Tiul has not shown that

this finding lacks substantial evidence, and thus, that being a woman was “one central rea-

son for” her abuse. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Each of those reasons suffices to torpedo

her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims.

Cuc-Tiul’s Convention claim fails too. The immigration judge found that, though her

ex-boyfriend might harm her if she went back, she had not proven that he is more likely

than not to do so. Cuc-Tiul does not know where he is, whether he has married, or how he

would even know if she had returned. She has not proven “that it is more likely than not

that … she would be tortured if removed to” Guatemala. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). We will

thus DENY the petition for review.