Patria Laureano v. Attorney General United States of America

── Patria Laureano v. Attorney General United States of America ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 24-2433 _____________ PATRIA LAUREANO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Case No. A044-879-555) Immigration Judge: Carmen Rey Caldas _____________ Argued October 1, 2025 _____________ Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 29, 2026) _____________ Rebecca Hufstader [Argued] Robert Jackel Legal Services of New Jersey 100 Metroplex Drive, Suite 101 Edison, NJ 08818 Counsel for Petitioner Yaakov M. Roth Keith I. McManus Edward C. Durant Anthony J. Nardi [Argued] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent Trina A. Realmuto [Argued] National Immigration Litigation Alliance 10 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA 02446 Counsel for Amicus ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Patria Laureano asks us to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her withholding of 2 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction to review both of her claims. As to the merits, the Majority concludes that the BIA correctly denied CAT relief, and one of us would hold that the Attorney General’s opinion in Matter of Y-L-, A-G- & R-S-R, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274 (A.G. 2002), bars Laureano’s withholding arguments, while another would hold that Y-L- is ultra vires. A third panel member would hold that we lack jurisdiction to consider any of her claims. As a result, we will deny Laureano’s petition to review her CAT claim, but as to statutory withholding, because we do not have a majority, the petition for review is denied by an equally divided vote.1 1 Because there is no majority on the outcome of Laureano’s petition for review of the denial of her statutory withholding claim, we follow the practice of the Supreme Court in leaving intact the ruling under review. See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., 562 U.S. 40 (2010); Freidrichs v. Cal. Teachers Assoc., 578 U.S. 1 (2016). Our dissenting colleague objects to this nomenclature, Dissent at 12-13, but there is no panel majority on the merits of the BIA’s decision on withholding. One of us would deny the petition; one would grant the petition and remand, and one would dismiss based on a lack of jurisdiction. Thus, there are insufficient votes to either adopt the BIA’s holding or disturb it. The effect of our leaving intact the BIA decision is the same that would result if this had been a direct appeal rather than a petition for review, namely, an affirmance of the order, but it lacks the weight of an affirmance because there is no majority to support it. 3  I Laureano, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1994. While in the United States, her partner physically abused and threatened her when she tried to leave him. In 2005, he sent a package containing drugs to her workplace. She was arrested and cooperated with law enforcement. Laureano’s partner threatened to kill her for “this act of betrayal.” AR 109. In 2007, Laureano pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After serving a twenty-four- month se