Case: 19-11234 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11234 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-838-227 MARIA HERNANDEZ-GUEVARA, et al., Petitioners, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 8, 2020) Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-11234 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 2 of 7 Maria Hernandez-Guevara and her son seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her 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). The agency denied relief, in part, because Hernandez-Guevara did not allege a cognizable particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and because she did not establish the necessary likelihood of torture by the Honduran government or with its acquiescence. We affirm the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions and deny Hernandez-Guevara’s petition. I. ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL To start, Hernandez-Guevara did not abandon her opportunity to challenge the BIA’s determinations regarding asylum and withholding of removal. We will consider Hernandez-Guevara’s arguments because she adequately identified the issues and relevant arguments in her brief. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530–31 (11th Cir. 2013). Despite the dearth of citations to the record and applicable law, she sufficiently developed her arguments—certainly making more than “passing references” to the core issues—to avoid abandonment or waiver. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014). 2 Case: 19-11234 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 3 of 7 We review only the BIA’s decision, “except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision here, we review both decisions. See id. Hernandez-Guevara seeks asylum as a refugee. She has the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To establish refugee status, an applicant must prove “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). At issue here, first, is whether Hernandez-Guevara asserted a cognizable “particular social group,” a question of law that we review de novo. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). While the INA does not define “particular social group,” we have applied Chevron deference to the BIA’s formulation of the criteria that must be satisfied. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 2006). A “particular social group” is “a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.” Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1308–09 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals