Case: 17-15618 Date Filed: 12/20/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15618 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A202-072-118 JENNY KARINA ALVAREZ-ERAZO, ANI ALEXANDRA SANTOS-ALVAREZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 20, 2018) Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15618 Date Filed: 12/20/2018 Page: 2 of 7 Jenny Karina Alvarez Erazo, and her daughter, Ani Alexandra Santos Alvarez, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Alvarez Erazo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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 concluded that Alvarez Erazo was not credible, and, alternatively, had not otherwise established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. I. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962, 966-67 (11th Cir. 2012). When the BIA explicitly agrees with the findings of the IJ, we will review the decision of both the BIA and the IJ as to those issues. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). If the BIA declines to address an IJ’s alternative basis for a conclusion, the alternative basis is not an issue before us. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1220 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision in full. Rather, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s credibility determination on certain grounds and the alternative asylum eligibility determination on certain grounds, but also held, even if Alvarez 2 Case: 17-15618 Date Filed: 12/20/2018 Page: 3 of 7 Erazo’s testimony was credible, her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief should be denied for the alternative reasons found by the IJ. Thus, we review only the BIA’s decision except insofar as it agreed with the IJ’s findings that: (1) Alvarez Erazo did not show eligibility for asylum because she did not show that she was persecuted or had a reasonably objective fear of future persecution; and (2) Alvarez Erazo did not show eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. Because we agree with the BIA that Alvarez Erazo failed to show eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, we decline to address its credibility finding and assume arguendo that she was credible. We review factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2006). We must affirm the decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. Id. We view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals