NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________
No. 22-1479 _______________
ELBER EUSTAQUIO YUMAN DAVILA, Petitioner v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________
On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-429-991) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope _______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 17, 2022
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 12, 2022 ) _______________
OPINION * _______________
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Though immigration authorities must show their work in removal proceedings, they
need not mention every piece of evidence. We will thus dismiss in part and deny in part
this petition for review.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. I. BACKGROUND
Elber Eustaquio Yuman Davila is from Guatemala, where he was a truck driver. He
attracted attention from a gang, which extorted money from him weekly. A gangster once
put a knife to his ribs and threatened to stab him unless he paid up. Though he tried to avoid
the gang, its members kept harassing him for more money.
Eventually, Yuman Davila traveled to his aunt’s home in the capital. Taking her advice,
he reported the gang’s extortion to both the public ministry and the police. Days later, the
gangsters left a letter for him at her house, saying they knew where he was.
Frightened, Yuman Davila called the gangsters and warned them that he had reported
them to the police. In response, they “became furious” and “said that they would kill” him.
AR 55. After he returned to his hometown, the gang kept looking for him.
Yuman Davila came to America about a year later, in June 2018. He overstayed his
work visa and was arrested after a traffic incident. The next month, immigration authorities
started removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but sought asylum, with-
holding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The immigration judge
found him credible but denied all three types of relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissed his appeal.
When the Board’s decision adopts the immigration judge’s, we review both. Doe v.
Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial
evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 106
(3d Cir. 2020).
2 II. WE LACK JURISDICTION TO REVIEW HIS ASYLUM CLAIM
For asylum, Yuman Davila had to apply within a year of arriving in the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). He did not. But he says we should still consider his late applica-
tion because of “changed circumstances” that “materially affect” his eligibility.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Circumstances changed, he says, when his family told him in June 2021
that the gangsters were still looking for him.
Yet Yuman Davila did not show that the gang’s interest in him “either significantly
increased or intensified,” so the immigration judge and the Board rejected his argument.
AR 4, 58–60. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision. § 1158(a)(3); Sukwanputra v.
Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 633–35 (3d Cir. 2006). And despite his efforts, he has not shown
that the Board made a legal mistake over which we have jurisdiction. See § 1252(a)(2)(D).
The Board properly applied the “principles govern[ing]” the changed-circumstances in-
quiry. See In re D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297, 300–02 (B.I.A. 2021), cited in AR 4. We will
thus dismiss this part of his petition.
III. HIS WITHHOLDING CLAIM FAILS
For withholding of removal, Yuman Davila must show that he belonged to a cognizable
“particular social group” and that “his membership in the group is one central reason why
he was or will be targeted for persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Gonzalez-Posadas
v. Att’y Gen., 781 F.3d 677, 684–85 (3d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). He
proposes two social groups. But the first one does not count, and his membership in the
second was not a “central reason” for his persecution.
3 A. Resisting extortion cannot define a cognizable social group
Yuman Davila’s first proposed group is “Guatemalan males who resist extortion by
street gangs.” AR 61. But that group is not cognizable because it does not “exist inde-
pendently” of the extortion: a group “cannot be created by the alleged underlying persecu-
tion.” Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 172 (3d Cir. 2003). Thus, his claim that the
immigration judge and the Board misapplied Lukwago fails. Compare id. at 174–75 (dis-
tinguishing a non-cognizable group of abducted child soldiers from a cognizable group of
those child soldiers who escaped), with Reply Br. 14–17 & n.8.
B. Reporting the gang to the police was not a central reason for his persecution
The immigration judge found that Yuman Davila belonged to a cognizable social group
of those “who have publicly assisted law enforcement against violent gangs in Guatemala.”
AR 60–61. He also found that Yuman Davila had been persecuted. But he concluded that
these two things were not closely related: Yuman Davila’s membership in that group “was
not one central reason” for his persecution. AR 61. He had been threatened for money, not
for helping the police. The Board agreed.
So do we. There is substantial evidence that “an essential or principal reason” that the
gangsters threatened Yuman Davila was money, not to punish him for reporting them to
the police. Gonzalez-Posadas, 781 F.3d at 685–86; Thayalan v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 132,
142–44 (3d Cir. 2021). He concedes that he was “initially victimized for financial reasons.”
Reply Br. 5 n.2. And as the immigration judge explained, neither the level of violence nor
the nature of the threats changed. Before he ever complained to the police, the gangsters
threatened him with a knife for money; after his complaint, they kept demanding money.
4 True, after he called them and mentioned his complaint to the police, they grew “furious”
and threatened to kill him. AR 55. So “other interpretations of the record are certainly
possible.” Gonzalez-Posadas, 781 F.3d at 687. But “substantial evidence [still] supports
the agency’s determination” that his helping the police was not a central reason for his
persecution. Id.
Fighting this conclusion, Yuman Davila argues that both the immigration judge and the
Board procedurally erred. He says they disregarded his testimony that the gangsters “be-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________
No. 22-1479 _______________
ELBER EUSTAQUIO YUMAN DAVILA, Petitioner v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________
On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-429-991) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope _______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 17, 2022
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 12, 2022 ) _______________
OPINION * _______________
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Though immigration authorities must show their work in removal proceedings, they
need not mention every piece of evidence. We will thus dismiss in part and deny in part
this petition for review.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. I. BACKGROUND
Elber Eustaquio Yuman Davila is from Guatemala, where he was a truck driver. He
attracted attention from a gang, which extorted money from him weekly. A gangster once
put a knife to his ribs and threatened to stab him unless he paid up. Though he tried to avoid
the gang, its members kept harassing him for more money.
Eventually, Yuman Davila traveled to his aunt’s home in the capital. Taking her advice,
he reported the gang’s extortion to both the public ministry and the police. Days later, the
gangsters left a letter for him at her house, saying they knew where he was.
Frightened, Yuman Davila called the gangsters and warned them that he had reported
them to the police. In response, they “became furious” and “said that they would kill” him.
AR 55. After he returned to his hometown, the gang kept looking for him.
Yuman Davila came to America about a year later, in June 2018. He overstayed his
work visa and was arrested after a traffic incident. The next month, immigration authorities
started removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but sought asylum, with-
holding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The immigration judge
found him credible but denied all three types of relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissed his appeal.
When the Board’s decision adopts the immigration judge’s, we review both. Doe v.
Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial
evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 106
(3d Cir. 2020).
2 II. WE LACK JURISDICTION TO REVIEW HIS ASYLUM CLAIM
For asylum, Yuman Davila had to apply within a year of arriving in the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). He did not. But he says we should still consider his late applica-
tion because of “changed circumstances” that “materially affect” his eligibility.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Circumstances changed, he says, when his family told him in June 2021
that the gangsters were still looking for him.
Yet Yuman Davila did not show that the gang’s interest in him “either significantly
increased or intensified,” so the immigration judge and the Board rejected his argument.
AR 4, 58–60. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision. § 1158(a)(3); Sukwanputra v.
Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 633–35 (3d Cir. 2006). And despite his efforts, he has not shown
that the Board made a legal mistake over which we have jurisdiction. See § 1252(a)(2)(D).
The Board properly applied the “principles govern[ing]” the changed-circumstances in-
quiry. See In re D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297, 300–02 (B.I.A. 2021), cited in AR 4. We will
thus dismiss this part of his petition.
III. HIS WITHHOLDING CLAIM FAILS
For withholding of removal, Yuman Davila must show that he belonged to a cognizable
“particular social group” and that “his membership in the group is one central reason why
he was or will be targeted for persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Gonzalez-Posadas
v. Att’y Gen., 781 F.3d 677, 684–85 (3d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). He
proposes two social groups. But the first one does not count, and his membership in the
second was not a “central reason” for his persecution.
3 A. Resisting extortion cannot define a cognizable social group
Yuman Davila’s first proposed group is “Guatemalan males who resist extortion by
street gangs.” AR 61. But that group is not cognizable because it does not “exist inde-
pendently” of the extortion: a group “cannot be created by the alleged underlying persecu-
tion.” Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 172 (3d Cir. 2003). Thus, his claim that the
immigration judge and the Board misapplied Lukwago fails. Compare id. at 174–75 (dis-
tinguishing a non-cognizable group of abducted child soldiers from a cognizable group of
those child soldiers who escaped), with Reply Br. 14–17 & n.8.
B. Reporting the gang to the police was not a central reason for his persecution
The immigration judge found that Yuman Davila belonged to a cognizable social group
of those “who have publicly assisted law enforcement against violent gangs in Guatemala.”
AR 60–61. He also found that Yuman Davila had been persecuted. But he concluded that
these two things were not closely related: Yuman Davila’s membership in that group “was
not one central reason” for his persecution. AR 61. He had been threatened for money, not
for helping the police. The Board agreed.
So do we. There is substantial evidence that “an essential or principal reason” that the
gangsters threatened Yuman Davila was money, not to punish him for reporting them to
the police. Gonzalez-Posadas, 781 F.3d at 685–86; Thayalan v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 132,
142–44 (3d Cir. 2021). He concedes that he was “initially victimized for financial reasons.”
Reply Br. 5 n.2. And as the immigration judge explained, neither the level of violence nor
the nature of the threats changed. Before he ever complained to the police, the gangsters
threatened him with a knife for money; after his complaint, they kept demanding money.
4 True, after he called them and mentioned his complaint to the police, they grew “furious”
and threatened to kill him. AR 55. So “other interpretations of the record are certainly
possible.” Gonzalez-Posadas, 781 F.3d at 687. But “substantial evidence [still] supports
the agency’s determination” that his helping the police was not a central reason for his
persecution. Id.
Fighting this conclusion, Yuman Davila argues that both the immigration judge and the
Board procedurally erred. He says they disregarded his testimony that the gangsters “be-
came furious” and “swore they would retaliate” when he told them that he had complained
to the police. Pet’r’s Br. 21 (quoting AR 168, 333). But they did not disregard this testi-
mony. The immigration judge acknowledged that he had “told the gang members that he
had reported them to law enforcement” and explained that the continuing threats were
about money. AR 61. The Board did likewise. They need not go further to “expressly parse
each point or discuss each piece of evidence presented.” Fei Yan Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 744
F.3d 268, 272 (3d Cir. 2014).
Yuman Davila also asserts that the immigration judge and the Board should have ana-
lyzed whether there is a “pattern or practice” of persecuting those who help the police
against gangs. Pet’r’s Br. 25–27 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)). But because he
never made that argument to the Board, he has failed to exhaust this issue. See Lin v. Att’y
Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 119–22 (3d Cir. 2008); Thayalan, 997 F.3d at 144 n.5. We thus cannot
review it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Lin, 543 F.3d at 119–22.
5 IV. HIS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE CLAIM FAILS TOO
Finally, for his Convention claim, Yuman Davila must show that he would more likely
than not be tortured upon returning to Guatemala and that the Guatemalan government
would acquiesce to his torture. Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515–16 (3d Cir. 2017).
Though he disputes it, the immigration judge and the Board properly rejected his claim of
governmental acquiescence. First, they found that public officials would likely address his
reports. That finding is supported by substantial evidence: the Guatemalan police previ-
ously helped him and other victims of extortion. See Galeas Figueroa v. Att’y Gen., 998
F.3d 77, 92–93 (3d Cir. 2021). And second, they correctly concluded that this response
would not be acquiescence. “[A]s a matter of law, the [Guatemalan] government’s likely
response to future reports of crime—taking a report and commencing an investigation—
does not constitute acquiescence.” Id. That conclusion defeats Yuman Davila’s Convention
claim. Id.
* * * * *
Because we lack jurisdiction to review Yuman Davila’s asylum claim, we will dismiss
that part of his petition. And because his withholding and Convention claims fail on the
merits, we will deny the rest.