Case: 19-13656 Date Filed: 08/06/2020 Page: 1 of 15 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13656 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-240-343 JUANA MARIA PORTILLO-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 6, 2020) Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-13656 Date Filed: 08/06/2020 Page: 2 of 15 Juana Portillo-Bautista seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum. First, she argues that the BIA should have dismissed the removal proceedings because her putative notice to appear (“NTA”) violated the claims processing rule set out in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14. Second, she argues that the immigration judge and BIA erred in making an adverse credibility determination and denying her asylum application. After careful review, we dismiss in part and deny in part her petition. I. Background Portillo-Bautista, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection on or about July 30, 2011. On August 1, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security served her with a NTA, which charged that she was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The NTA ordered her to appear “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” Subsequently, she received a notice of hearing that provided the day and time of her hearing. After transferring the case from California to Florida, Portillo-Bautista received another notice of hearing providing an updated day and time for her individual hearing. In March 2012, Portillo-Bautista filed her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against 2 Case: 19-13656 Date Filed: 08/06/2020 Page: 3 of 15 Torture (“CAT”) based on her political opinion, membership in a particular social group, and nationality. 1 At a hearing in November 2013, Portillo-Bautista presented evidence that she came to the U.S. because she feared harm from her stepfather. She said that she experienced problems with gang members because they wanted her to join and become their girlfriend. She also testified that the police came by the watermelon stand where she worked to question her about her brother, and that, although she told the police nothing, she heard from her brother and a family friend that the gang thought she was an informer and wanted to kill her. The IJ issued an oral decision which found that Portillo-Bautista did not establish that she was eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Portillo-Bautista appealed to the BIA, arguing, in relevant part, that the IJ erred in denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under CAT. The BIA remanded the case for further factual development based on the limited time afforded to Portillo-Bautista to present evidence and testimony, particularly related to her proposed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals