Eddy Martinez Allqui v. Attorney General United States of America

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

No. 24-2166 _____________

EDDY ROBERTO MARTINEZ ALLQUI; MARIA DE LOS ANGELES CAIZA PILAMUNGA; M. A. M. C.; A. K. M. C., Petitioners v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Case Nos. A220-574-215; A240-086-109; A240-086-110; A240-086-111) Immigration Judge: Steve Mannion _____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 6, 2025 _____________

Before: MATEY, FREEMAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed October 22, 2025) _____________

OPINION* _____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners, a married couple and their two children, are citizens of Ecuador. One

of the children, M.A.M.C., attended a public school in Ecuador where students allegedly

forced him to distribute drugs. Petitioners left Ecuador and entered the United States

where they were charged with removability. All requested asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration

Judge (IJ) denied the requests for asylum and withholding of removal because their

claimed social group, “immediate family members” of M.A.M.C., lacked a nexus to any

purported harm. A.R. 38. The IJ also denied CAT relief, reasoning that Petitioners were

unlikely to be tortured in Ecuador. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.1

We see no error in these administrative decisions. The IJ and BIA properly

concluded that Petitioners did not demonstrate “a nexus between the alleged protected

grounds and the feared or past persecution.” Hernandez Garmendia v. Att’y Gen., 28

F.4th 476, 483 (3d Cir. 2022). That is sufficient to deny their requests for asylum and

withholding of removal. See id.; Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att’y Gen., 781 F.3d 677, 684–85

(3d Cir. 2015). The IJ and BIA also correctly denied their request for CAT relief because

the conditions M.A.M.C. alleged do not constitute torture. See Chen v. Gonzales, 434

F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2005). And the record provides no suggestion that any future

1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where, as here, “the BIA affirms and partially reiterates the IJ’s discussions and determinations, we look to both decisions.” Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515 (3d Cir. 2017). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal determinations de novo. Saban-Cach v. Att’y Gen., 58 F.4th 716, 724 n.23 (3d Cir. 2023).

2 torture (in the unlikely event it was to occur) would come at the hands of the government

or with its “consent or acquiescence.” Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515 (3d Cir.

2017) (quoting Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 151 (3d Cir. 2005)). For these reasons,

we will deny the petition for review.