Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14973 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-117-964 JOSE CRISTIAN ARGUETA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 6, 2020) Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 2 of 7 Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Argueta-Martinez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and for relief under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Argueta-Martinez argues that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because his family faces persecution from MS-13 gang members in El Salvador. He also argues that he is entitled to humanitarian asylum. The IJ held that Argueta-Martinez’s claims were time-barred, that his testimony lacked credibility, and that his claims failed on the merits, in any event. The BIA held that under INS v. Bagamasbad, it did not need to “need not decide whether [Argueta-Martinez’s] asylum application [was] time barred or whether his testimony was credible because [it] discern[ed] no error in the [IJ’s] alternative denial of the asylum claim on its merits.” BIA Order Dismissing Appeal at 2 (citing Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (holding that “courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach”)). We agree and affirm. 2 Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 3 of 7 I “[W]e review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 890 (11th Cir. 2007). “We must affirm the decision . . . if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who meets the INA’s definition of a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), which is defined as: Any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Id. at § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant must therefore demonstrate that he (1) was persecuted in the past on account of a protected ground or (2) has a “well-founded fear” that he will be persecuted in the future on account of a protected ground. Ruiz v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals