USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12116 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-696-241 PERDRO RAMON ZAPATA-RIVERO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 1, 2021) Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7 Perdro Zapata-Rivero petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). First, Zapata-Rivero argues that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding, in denying him asylum and withholding of removal, was not supported by substantial evidence. Second, he argues that the BIA did not fully consider his claim that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding should not have automatically foreclosed CAT relief. In petitions for review of BIA decisions, we review factual determinations under the substantial evidence test and conclusions of law de novo. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). When the BIA agrees with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge, we review both decisions. Id. The substantial evidence test is “highly deferential,” and 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.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7 considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To reverse, the record must compel a contrary conclusion, and the mere fact that the record may support a different conclusion is not sufficient. Id. An alien has the burden to prove that he is eligible for asylum and for withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(a), 1208.16(b). For asylum, an alien must establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed protected ground, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily protected ground will cause future persecution. Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2010). Protected grounds include “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). For withholding of removal, an alien must show “that [his] life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of” a statutorily protected ground, and it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted. Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724, 728 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Because the standard for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals