Case: 17-14916 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14916 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-600-038 DHRUBA THAPA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 31, 2018) Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Dhruba Thapa seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for Case: 17-14916 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 2 of 7 (1) asylum, (2) withholding of removal, and (3) protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). Thapa contends that Maoists harmed him on account of his political opinion, and therefore argues on appeal that the IJ and BIA erred by not granting his asylum and withholding-of-removal petitions. Thapa also asserts that he suffered torturous beatings to which the local authorities refused to respond, and he therefore additionally argues on appeal that the BIA and IJ erred in denying CAT relief. I We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement. Id. Issues not reached by the BIA are not properly before us. Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1369 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning as to whether Thapa proved that any mistreatment he suffered was on account of a protected ground and whether Thapa was entitled to CAT relief, we review the decisions of both the BIA and IJ as to those findings. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1350. The BIA did not, however, address the IJ’s alternative finding (i.e., that if Thapa had shown a nexus to a protected ground and 2 Case: 17-14916 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 3 of 7 had shown past persecution, the IJ would nevertheless have found that the government had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear), and therefore that issue is not before us. Seck, 663 F.3d at 1369. We review administrative findings of fact under the substantial-evidence test. Antipova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2004). Under this test, we must affirm the BIA’s decision—i.e., deny the petition—“if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). We “view 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) (en banc). We will not reverse unless the evidence compels a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise. Antipova, 392 F.3d at 1261. “[T]he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals