NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________
No. 25-1814
______________
WALTER GUSTAVO SUAREZ JUAREZ; ANA LUCIA JARA MONTOYA; A. B. S. J.; X. V. S.J.; G. A. S.J., Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (Agency Nos. A220-738-782, A240-075-272, A240-075-273, A240-075-274, A240-075- 275) Immigration Judge: Maria I. Akalski ______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 2, 2026 ______________
Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 3, 2026) ______________
OPINION*
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Walter Suarez Juarez, his wife, and his children petition for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) granting their motions to reconsider but
denying their motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the
petitions.
I
Juarez is a native citizen of Peru, where he worked as a taxi driver. Extortionists
demanded that he pay them one hundred soles a week to continue working, and he did so
for about a year. In November 2021, Juarez could no longer afford the payments. The
next month, armed extortionists beat and threatened him at his workplace. Juarez
reported this assault to the police the day it occurred. The police advised him that they
were unable to protect him and to leave the area because the extortionists had recently
murdered other taxi drivers.
Thereafter, Juarez and his family entered the United States without being admitted
or paroled. His sister lives in his house in Peru and she told Juarez that apparent
extortionists appeared there looking for him.
Petitioners were issued a notice to appear for removal proceedings. They
conceded removability but sought asylum1 based on persecution on account of Juarez’s
1 Because Petitioners’ arguments before us relate to only their asylum application, they have forfeited any arguments based on their applications for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Leslie v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 611 F.3d 171, 174 n.2 (3d Cir. 2010). 2 membership in the particular social group (“PSG”) of “cooperating witnesses who
publicly denounce organized criminal activity.”2 AR 184.
The IJ found Juarez credible but denied relief. The IJ concluded that Juarez was
targeted because the extornitists wanted his money, and not because of his membership in
any PSG. Petitioners appealed to the BIA. The BIA declined to decide whether a PSG of
cooperating witnesses who publicly denounce organized crime was cognizable but
concluded that Juarez had not demonstrated that membership therein was “at least one
central reason” for his assault. AR 117.
After the appeal was dismissed, Juarez learned that his father, Walter Suarez
Cervantes, was threatened and beaten. His father survived the attack but received a
funeral flower arrangement with a note containing the name “Walter Suarez.” AR 59, 80.
Petitioners moved to reopen the removal proceedings based on the attack on
Juarez’s father. He provided photographs of the floral arrangement, his father’s hospital
records, and a sworn statement affirming that (1) the note accompanying the flower
arrangement demanded information on Juarez’s whereabouts, threatened harm to Juarez’s
father and his family members if he refused, and identified the criminal organization
2 Before the IJ, Petitioners also asserted that Juarez belonged to the PSG of “former taxi drivers who refuse extortion demands,” AR 184, but they do not rely on this PSG before us, so any argument based on that PSG is forfeited. Leslie, 611 F.3d at 174 n.2. 3 “Tren de Aragua,”3 (2) his father believes he was attacked because Tren de Aragua is
looking for Juarez, and (3) Juarez himself believes the gang is looking for him “because
[he] cooperated with the police when [he] was physically assaulted.” AR 60. The new
evidence also includes a police report filed by Juarez’s father indicating his belief that he
was attacked and threatened because of Juarez’s 2021 police complaint. Petitioners
argued that the new evidence demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief based on
Juarez’s persecution on account of his membership in the PSG of “cooperating witnesses
who publicly denounce organized criminal activity.” AR 51. The BIA denied the motion
to reopen because the new evidence would not “likely change the result.” AR 31.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, asserting that the standard on a motion to
reopen is whether the movant is reasonably likely to show that he is entitled to relief, not
whether new evidence would likely change the result. The BIA granted reconsideration
to correct its articulation of this standard. It then assessed the motion to reopen under the
proper standard and denied it because, even with the new evidence, Petitioners were not
reasonably likely to show the required nexus between Juarez’s membership in a PSG and
his harm.
Juarez and his family members petition for review.
3 The photograph of the note accompanying the flower arrangement clearly reads “Walter Suarez,” which is also the name of Juarez’s father, but otherwise does not reflect a request for Juarez’s whereabouts or identify Tren de Aragua. AR 80. 4 II4
A movant seeking reopening of removal proceedings must identify material
evidence that “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA may deny reopening if “the movant
has failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290
F.3d 166, 169 (3d Cir. 2002). To make that prima facie case, the movant must “produce
objective evidence showing a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that he can establish [that he is
entitled to relief].” Darby v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 1 F.4th 151, 160-61 (3d Cir. 2021)
(alteration in original) (quoting Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 563 (3d Cir. 2004), as
amended (Dec. 3, 2004)).
To be eligible for asylum, Petitioners must establish that Juarez’s PSG
membership “was or will be at least one central reason for” his persecution. See
Thayalan v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 997 F.3d 132, 138, 142 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).5 In their motion to reopen, Petitioners therefore needed to show that
4 The IJ had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.2(b) and 1240.1(a); the BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b) and 1003.2, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and (b)(6). Darby v.
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. 25-1814
______________
WALTER GUSTAVO SUAREZ JUAREZ; ANA LUCIA JARA MONTOYA; A. B. S. J.; X. V. S.J.; G. A. S.J., Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (Agency Nos. A220-738-782, A240-075-272, A240-075-273, A240-075-274, A240-075- 275) Immigration Judge: Maria I. Akalski ______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 2, 2026 ______________
Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 3, 2026) ______________
OPINION*
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Walter Suarez Juarez, his wife, and his children petition for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) granting their motions to reconsider but
denying their motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the
petitions.
I
Juarez is a native citizen of Peru, where he worked as a taxi driver. Extortionists
demanded that he pay them one hundred soles a week to continue working, and he did so
for about a year. In November 2021, Juarez could no longer afford the payments. The
next month, armed extortionists beat and threatened him at his workplace. Juarez
reported this assault to the police the day it occurred. The police advised him that they
were unable to protect him and to leave the area because the extortionists had recently
murdered other taxi drivers.
Thereafter, Juarez and his family entered the United States without being admitted
or paroled. His sister lives in his house in Peru and she told Juarez that apparent
extortionists appeared there looking for him.
Petitioners were issued a notice to appear for removal proceedings. They
conceded removability but sought asylum1 based on persecution on account of Juarez’s
1 Because Petitioners’ arguments before us relate to only their asylum application, they have forfeited any arguments based on their applications for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Leslie v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 611 F.3d 171, 174 n.2 (3d Cir. 2010). 2 membership in the particular social group (“PSG”) of “cooperating witnesses who
publicly denounce organized criminal activity.”2 AR 184.
The IJ found Juarez credible but denied relief. The IJ concluded that Juarez was
targeted because the extornitists wanted his money, and not because of his membership in
any PSG. Petitioners appealed to the BIA. The BIA declined to decide whether a PSG of
cooperating witnesses who publicly denounce organized crime was cognizable but
concluded that Juarez had not demonstrated that membership therein was “at least one
central reason” for his assault. AR 117.
After the appeal was dismissed, Juarez learned that his father, Walter Suarez
Cervantes, was threatened and beaten. His father survived the attack but received a
funeral flower arrangement with a note containing the name “Walter Suarez.” AR 59, 80.
Petitioners moved to reopen the removal proceedings based on the attack on
Juarez’s father. He provided photographs of the floral arrangement, his father’s hospital
records, and a sworn statement affirming that (1) the note accompanying the flower
arrangement demanded information on Juarez’s whereabouts, threatened harm to Juarez’s
father and his family members if he refused, and identified the criminal organization
2 Before the IJ, Petitioners also asserted that Juarez belonged to the PSG of “former taxi drivers who refuse extortion demands,” AR 184, but they do not rely on this PSG before us, so any argument based on that PSG is forfeited. Leslie, 611 F.3d at 174 n.2. 3 “Tren de Aragua,”3 (2) his father believes he was attacked because Tren de Aragua is
looking for Juarez, and (3) Juarez himself believes the gang is looking for him “because
[he] cooperated with the police when [he] was physically assaulted.” AR 60. The new
evidence also includes a police report filed by Juarez’s father indicating his belief that he
was attacked and threatened because of Juarez’s 2021 police complaint. Petitioners
argued that the new evidence demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief based on
Juarez’s persecution on account of his membership in the PSG of “cooperating witnesses
who publicly denounce organized criminal activity.” AR 51. The BIA denied the motion
to reopen because the new evidence would not “likely change the result.” AR 31.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, asserting that the standard on a motion to
reopen is whether the movant is reasonably likely to show that he is entitled to relief, not
whether new evidence would likely change the result. The BIA granted reconsideration
to correct its articulation of this standard. It then assessed the motion to reopen under the
proper standard and denied it because, even with the new evidence, Petitioners were not
reasonably likely to show the required nexus between Juarez’s membership in a PSG and
his harm.
Juarez and his family members petition for review.
3 The photograph of the note accompanying the flower arrangement clearly reads “Walter Suarez,” which is also the name of Juarez’s father, but otherwise does not reflect a request for Juarez’s whereabouts or identify Tren de Aragua. AR 80. 4 II4
A movant seeking reopening of removal proceedings must identify material
evidence that “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA may deny reopening if “the movant
has failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290
F.3d 166, 169 (3d Cir. 2002). To make that prima facie case, the movant must “produce
objective evidence showing a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that he can establish [that he is
entitled to relief].” Darby v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 1 F.4th 151, 160-61 (3d Cir. 2021)
(alteration in original) (quoting Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 563 (3d Cir. 2004), as
amended (Dec. 3, 2004)).
To be eligible for asylum, Petitioners must establish that Juarez’s PSG
membership “was or will be at least one central reason for” his persecution. See
Thayalan v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 997 F.3d 132, 138, 142 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).5 In their motion to reopen, Petitioners therefore needed to show that
4 The IJ had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.2(b) and 1240.1(a); the BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b) and 1003.2, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and (b)(6). Darby v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 1 F.4th 151, 159 (3d Cir. 2021). We review “the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will not disturb the BIA’s determination unless it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Id. 5 As relevant here, to be eligible for asylum, the applicant must show that he is “unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself . . . of the protection of [the country to which he would be removed] . . . because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in a [PSG],” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Persecution is “on account of” membership in a PSG only if the PSG membership “was or will be at least one central reason for” the persecution. Thayalan, 997 F.3d at 138, 142 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). 5 they were reasonably likely to prove that Juarez’s membership in a PSG “was or will be”
a reason for his persecution. Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)); see Darby, 1 F.4th
at 160-61.
Petitioners’ new evidence fails to make that showing. As an initial matter, the
harm Juarez experienced before reporting his assault to the police could not have been
motivated by his status as a cooperating witness who publicly denounced organized crime
because the assault predated his cooperation with police, and he does not claim to have
otherwise cooperated or denounced organized crime.
Although Juarez and his father believe that Juarez’s cooperation caused the harm
that followed the police report, namely, the attack on and threat against Juarez’s father,
Petitioners identify no factual bases for those beliefs, and the record is devoid of evidence
that the extortionists knew Juarez cooperated.6 See Hernandez Garmendia v. Att’y Gen.
U.S., 28 F.4th 476, 483 (3d Cir. 2022) (requiring applicant to show “that the persecutor
knows or believes that the applicant possesses the protected characteristic”). Rather, the
record shows that Juarez paid the extotionists for a year and was assaulted when those
payments stopped. Moreover, the extortionists did not subsequently refer to Juarez’s
cooperation with police. This supports the conclusion that the extortionists were
motivated by money, not Juarez’s police report. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its
6 Juarez testified only that “it is possible that [the extortionists] have found out that [he] reported them” because “the police started to carry out procedures and operations at the place where [he] had been extorted.” AR 253. 6 discretion by denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen for failing to establish a prima facie
case of eligibility for relief.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition.