Case: 18-11504 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11504 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-415-314 JUANA YESSENIA JUAN FRANCISCO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 28, 2019) Case: 18-11504 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Juana Yessenia Juan Francisco seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order reversing the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting her application for asylum and withholding of removal. She now petitions this Court for review, and we affirm the BIA’s reversal of the IJ’s decision. Juan Francisco makes two arguments on appeal. First, she argues that the BIA “abused its authority by reviewing de novo the IJ’s factual findings . . . instead of applying the proper clear error standard.” Second, she argues that the harm she suffered in Guatemala was on account of her membership in a particular social group.1 We address these arguments in turn. I. The BIA must review the factual findings of the IJ for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3); Zhou Hua Zhu v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 703 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2013). Under clear error review, the “BIA must find that, on balance, the weight of the evidence so strongly militates against the IJ’s finding that the BIA ‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 1 The government argues that Juan Francisco has waived this argument by not making it in her initial brief. While it is true that Juan Francisco did not make this argument separately from her argument that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review, the relief she requested— reinstatement of the IJ’s decision—was based on it. In any event, this argument fails for the reasons explained below. 2 Case: 18-11504 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 3 of 6 Zhou Hua Zhu, 703 F.3d at 1315 (citation omitted). “A factfinding may not be overturned simply because the Board would have weighed the evidence differently or decided the facts differently had it been the factfinder.” Id. (citation omitted). Juan Francisco argues that the BIA failed to “articulate a factual basis that could support [its] conclusion,” and instead “focused the basis for its reversal on the IJ’s supposed reliance on Matter of A-R-C-G-.” It’s true that the BIA criticized the IJ’s supposed reliance on Matter of A-R-C-G-. 2 It is also true, as Juan Francisco argues, that the IJ did not in fact rely on Matter of A-R-C-G-. That said, it’s unclear why the IJ brought up Matter of A-R-C-G- in the first place.3 Whatever the reason, the BIA’s reversal of the IJ wasn’t based on the IJ’s supposed reliance on Matter of A-R-C-G-. Rather, the BIA concluded that there was no record evidence to support the IJ’s finding of a nexus between Juan Francisco’s harm ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals