USCA11 Case: 20-13369 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-13369 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-280-218 SANTA ADELAYDA COTO CASTILLO, TANIALIZETH VELASQUEZ COTO, a.k.a Tania Lizeth Velasquez Coto, MARBELY JOSELY VELASQUEZ COTO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ No. 21-10905 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-280-218 SANTA ADELAYDA COTO CASTILLO, TANIALIZETH VELASQUES COTO, USCA11 Case: 20-13369 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 2 of 8 MARBELY JOSELY VELASQUES COTO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 17, 2021) Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated appeal, Santa Adelayda Coto Castillo 1 (“Coto”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (“CAT”). She also seeks review of the BIA’s final order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. First, Coto argues that the IJ failed to conform to the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I & N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), by not 1 Coto’s petition for review is filed on behalf of herself and Tania Lizeth Velasquez Coto and Marbely Goseli Velasquez Coto, her minor daughters and derivative asylum applicants. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13369 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 3 of 8 making a determination as to her competency. Next, she argues that the IJ failed to conform to the BIA’s decision in Matter of C-B-, 25 I & N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012), by refusing to grant her a continuance to obtain new counsel. Finally, she argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s determination that she failed to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal. We address each claim in turn. I. We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration proceeding for an abuse of discretion, under which we will determine only whether the BIA exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). We also review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 2008). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision,” or when it fails to follow its own precedents “without providing a reasoned explanation for doing so.” Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2013). The appellant bears a heavy burden in proving arbitrariness or capriciousness because motions to reopen in the context of removal proceedings are particularly disfavored. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). 3 USCA11 Case: 20-13369 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 4 of 8 A motion to reopen “shall state …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals