USCA11 Case: 22-12509 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12509 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NELIDA RAMIREZ MENDEZ, DEILY DOMINGO RAMIREZ, DELEIDI DOMINGO RAMIREZ, MILBER DOMINGO RAMIREZ, UBILMER DOMINGO RAMIREZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12509 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12509 Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-193-212 ____________________ Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Nelida Ramirez Mendez and her daughter, Deleidi Do- mingo Ramirez, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order deny- ing their respective applications for asylum, withholding of re- moval, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). 1 After careful review, we dismiss in part, deny in part, and grant in part the petition for review. We also vacate certain parts of the BIA order and remand for further proceedings. I. First, Ramirez Mendez argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race as an indigenous Ma- yan. 1 Ramirez Mendez and Domingo Ramirez filed their own respective applica- tions for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Ramirez Mendez’s application includes her children as derivative beneficiaries: Deleidi, Deily, Milber, and Ubilmer Domingo Ramirez. USCA11 Case: 22-12509 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 3 of 12 22-12509 Opinion of the Court 3 We review only the decision of the BIA, unless the BIA ex- pressly adopted the decision of the IJ. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). In deciding whether to uphold the BIA’s decision, we are limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). We review legal conclusions de novo and review factual find- ings for substantial evidence. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Under the substantial evidence standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision, and affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reason- able, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To reverse the agency’s fact findings, we must find that the record not only supports rever- sal but compels it. Id. The mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the agency’s findings. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To meet the burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, a non-citizen must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals