Melvin Mendoza-Perez v. Attorney General United States of America

── Melvin Mendoza-Perez v. Attorney General United States of America ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 25-1553 _____________ MELVIN ALEXANDER MENDOZA-PEREZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A206-256-999 Immigration Judge: Amanda Jeannopoulos Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 23, 2026 Before: RESTREPO, PHIPPS, and MASCOTT, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 17, 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. RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Melvin Alexander Mendoza-Perez (“Mendoza-Perez”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal. We will deny the petition because the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) properly dismissed his appeal as untimely and determined that, in any event, his application for asylum and protection fails on the merits. I. Mendoza-Perez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States as an undocumented child. Mendoza-Perez concedes that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He applied for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that he feared persecution in Guatemala due to membership in a particular social group (“PSG”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) due to the likelihood of future torture. Mendoza-Perez contends that he is a member of the proposed PSG, “young men without a parent or guardian who are actively recruited by gangs.” 1 He testified that before he left Guatemala, he had been harassed and physically attacked by gang members attempting to recruit him. On August 14, 2020, an IJ orally denied Mendoza-Perez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. With respect to the asylum and withholding of removal claims, the IJ found that the harm that Mendoza-Perez suffered does not rise to the level of persecution and that the proposed PSG was not cognizable 1 App. 26. 2 because it lacked particularity. The IJ denied Mendoza-Perez’s request for CAT protection, reasoning that he failed to demonstrate: (1) that gang members would seek him out if he returned to Guatemala; (2) that any harm they inflicted would rise to the level of torture; and (3) that the government would acquiesce to any torture by the gang. The IJ concluded that Mendoza-Perez could safely relocate within Guatemala to a location other than his hometown and ordered his removal. Mendoza-Perez reserved his right to appeal and was advised that any appeal had to be filed with the BIA by September 14, 2020. The BIA received Mendoza-Perez’s appeal on September 17, 2020. The BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely and, in the alternative, concluded his appeal failed on the merits. We agree. II. 2 The BIA dismissed Mendoza-Perez’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of his applications for relief as untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed with the BIA no later than 30 days after an IJ’s decision.” 3 A notice of appeal is deemed filed on “the date the