Osman Cordon-Osario v. Attorney General United States of America

── Osman Cordon-Osario v. Attorney General United States of America ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1404 OSMAN ALEJANDRO CORDON-OSARIO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________________________ On Petition for Review from a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge Mary C. Lee, No. A216-371-648 Before: KRAUSE, MASCOTT, and FISHER , Circuit Judges Submitted Mar. 12, 2026; Decided Apr. 28, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION * KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Osman A. Cordon-Osario, a Guatemalan citizen, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and for protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18 (implementing regulations). Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief, we will deny the 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 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent.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. DISCUSSION 1 A. Withholding of Removal On appeal, Cordon-Osario challenges the agency’s denial of withholding of removal on two grounds: First, that he established past persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group giving rise to a presumption of future persecution if removed to Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Second, that he established he would suffer future persecution, i.e., his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his membership in a particular social group, in Guatemala. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). We disagree on both fronts. 1. Past Persecution Cordon-Osario contends that he suffered past persecution, entitling him to a rebuttable presumption that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Persecution “connotes extreme behavior, including threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Cortez-Amador v. Att’y Gen., 66 F.4th 429, 434 (3d Cir. 2023) (citation modified). Because we consider the “cumulative effect” of a petitioner’s experiences when determining if they rise to the level of persecution, each incident must be “assessed within the overall trajectory of the harassment.” Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 106-07 (3d Cir. 2020), abrogated on other grounds by Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 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 expressly adopts the IJ’s reasoning when issuing its own decision on the merits, we review both agency decisions. Hernandez Garmendia v. Att’y Gen., 28 F.4th 476, 482 (3d Cir. 2022). 2 845 (2026) (citation modified). Threats within that overall trajectory, absent physical harm, can establish persecution only if they are so “concrete and menacing” as to “pose[] a severe affront to the petitioner’s life or freedom.” Id. at 108 (citation modified). The question of whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated past persecution is a mixed question reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Urias-Orellana, 146 S. Ct. at 851. Here, Cordon-Osario arg