Case: 20-10084 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 1 of 26 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10084 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-299-888 JOSUE ERNESTO MUNOZ-GARCIA, A. C. M., Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 25, 2020) Before MARTIN, LUCK, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Josue Ernesto Munoz-Garcia and his minor daughter, co- Petitioner Angie Camila Munoz-Pineda, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Case: 20-10084 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 2 of 26 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). On appeal, Petitioners challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, arguing that the IJ erred in concluding that Petitioners’ proposed group of “persons from El Salvador who refused to assist gangs, reported the gangs to the police after threats, and faced increase gang violence as a result” did not constitute a cognizable “particular social group” under the INA. Petitioners also argue that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. The Government responds that we lack jurisdiction to review the petition because Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the BIA, and that Petitioners’ arguments fail on the merits in any event. After careful review, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the petition because Petitioners exhausted their challenges to the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and exhausted a substantial-evidence challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Our jurisdiction to review the CAT claim is limited, however. Because Petitioners failed to argue before the BIA that the IJ clearly erred in finding that Petitioner twice safely relocated within El Salvador, we may not review Petitioners’ unexhausted challenge to that factual finding. Thus, in assessing whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of CAT relief, we may not revisit the IJ’s “relocation” finding. 2 Case: 20-10084 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 3 of 26 Although we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, we ultimately agree with the Government on the merits of Petitioners’ claims. Because substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of relief, we deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Petitioners are natives and citizens of El Salvador. Thirteen years ago, in 2007, when Petitioner was residing in the city of San Salvador, police officers came to his door with their faces covered and demanded to be let in. When Petitioner refused, they forced the door open, hit Petitioner with a baton, handcuffed him, and transported him to the police station. At the police station, officers refused to explain why they had arrested Petitioner, give Petitioner their badge numbers, or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals