Case: 17-14870 Date Filed: 09/24/2018 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14870 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-239-683 QUANXING YANG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 24, 2018) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14870 Date Filed: 09/24/2018 Page: 2 of 12 Quanxing Yang seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The IJ and BIA determined that Yang was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in Peru, and they found that he failed to meet his burden for withholding of removal or CAT relief. On appeal, Yang argues that he was not firmly resettled in Peru, that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in China, and that he met the burdens for withholding of removal and CAT relief. I. STANDARDS We review only the decision of the BIA, unless the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). When the BIA explicitly agrees with the findings of the IJ, we will review both decisions to the extent of the agreement. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision but agreed with the IJ’s conclusions regarding Yang’s firm resettlement in Peru, as well as his failure to 2 Case: 17-14870 Date Filed: 09/24/2018 Page: 3 of 12 meet the burdens for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Thus, we review both decisions to that extent. See id. We review legal issues presented in a petition for review de novo. Id. We review factual findings under the substantial evidence test. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Under that test, “[w]e ‘must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id. at 1027 (quoting Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283–84). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. Factual findings “may be reversed by this [C]ourt only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Id. II. BACKGOUND Yang is a native and citizen of China. In 1991, when Yang was 13, he and his family left China for Peru. Yang attended school and then worked ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals