Case: 18-13290 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13290 ________________________ Agency No. A075-168-471 TOMMY MARTINEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 17, 2020) Before BRANCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: Tommy Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order that dismissed his appeal from * Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 18-13290 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 2 of 11 the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. He argues that the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that he was ineligible for CAT relief. After thorough review of the record and oral argument, we deny the petition for review. We review only the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision, unless it expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion or agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. Perez- Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). If the BIA adopted or agreed with the reasoning of the IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. Id. We lack jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien, like Martinez, who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), unless the alien raises constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). When we face a petition for review of an order denying a CAT claim from a petitioner like Martinez, we cannot review the administrative fact findings of the IJ or the BIA as to the sufficiency of the alien’s evidence or the likelihood that the alien will be tortured if returned to the country in question. Singh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir. 2009). However, whether a particular undisputed fact 2 Case: 18-13290 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 3 of 11 pattern amounts to torture as a matter of law “requires a court to apply a legal definition to a set of undisputed or adjudicated historical facts” and is a “question of law” within the meaning of the statute. Id. (quotations omitted). Thus, we retain jurisdiction to review the BIA’s legal conclusion that Martinez had not established torture under CAT. Id. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), we “may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies related to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals