Case: 17-10651 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ Nos. 17-10651, 17-14840 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-895-603 LEIDY MAYBELI OSORIO-ZACARIAS, A.O.B.O., Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 14, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Leidy Osorio-Zacarias and her minor son seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Case: 17-10651 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 2 of 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT relief”), and the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. On appeal, Osorio-Zacarias argues that: (1) she qualifies for asylum and withholding of removal because she suffered past persecution in Guatemala and established a well-founded fear of future persecution; (2) the BIA abused its discretion when it denied her motion to reopen based on new evidence of her post- traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) diagnosis and of country conditions. After careful review, we dismiss the petition in part, and deny it in part. We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopted or agreed with the opinion of the IJ. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). We must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. Id. Under the substantial-evidence test, we review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004). We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). Finally, we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Verano-Velasco v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 17-10651 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 3 of 13 First, we are unpersuaded by Osorio-Zacarias’s claim that the BIA erred by denying her asylum and withholding of removal. The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to an alien who establishes that she is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). To establish asylum based on past persecution, the applicant must prove that: (1) she was persecuted; and (2) the persecution was on account of a protected ground. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006). Persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, and mere harassment does not amount to persecution. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). A credible death ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals