Case: 17-14980 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14980 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-571-823 YE ENJIE, a.k.a. Enjie Ye, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 5, 2018) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14980 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 2 of 9 Ye Enjie (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied asylum and withholding of removal. 1 No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA adopts expressly the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the BIA agreed expressly with the IJ’s reasoning in this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See id. We review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 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.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). 1 The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. We will not address this claim, however, because Petitioner failed to challenge this denial in his appeal to the BIA and has failed to raise the issue on appeal. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. United States Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 17-14980 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 3 of 9 An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to his county of nationality “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including religion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status. Ruiz v. United States Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006). To do so, he must present “specific and credible evidence” demonstrating that he (1) was persecuted in the past based on a protected ground, or (2) has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in the future based on a protected ground. Id. Petitioner alleges he suffered past persecution by the Chinese government on account of his religion. Petitioner is a Christian and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals