USCA11 Case: 20-11322 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11322 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-889-578 NELSY YAZMIN GIRON-GARCIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 1, 2021) Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Nelsy Yazmin Giron-Garcia, a citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration USCA11 Case: 20-11322 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7 Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Giron-Garcia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”).1 On appeal, Giron- Garcia argues that the BIA erred in determining that her due process rights were not violated when the IJ allowed her attorney to withdraw on the day of her merits hearing and allowed her to proceed pro se. Giron-Garcia also argues that the IJ erred in finding that she did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution and finding that she could reasonably relocate within Guatemala. After careful review, we deny Giron-Garcia’s due process claim and dismiss her asylum claim for lack of jurisdiction. I. We review the decision of the BIA as the final judgment unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, in which case we review the IJ decision to the extent of the agreement. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Here, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision and issued a written decision solely addressing Giron-Garcia’s due process claim. But because the due process claim was only raised before and addressed by the BIA, we will review only the BIA’s decision as to that claim. See id. (explaining that 1 Giron-Garcia did not appeal the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim here, so we do not address it. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11322 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7 where the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision or rely on its reasoning, we review only the BIA decision). In petitions for review of BIA decisions, we review de novo constitutional challenges. Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence test and conclusions of law de novo. Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403. Under the substantial evidence test, we “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole,” and to warrant reversal, the record must compel a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the BIA. Id. (quotation marks omitted). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals