USCA11 Case: 20-11887 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11887 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-088-303 MARCO ANTONIO MARROQUIN-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 1, 2021) Before WILSON, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 20-11887 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7 PER CURIAM: Marco Marroquin-Gutierrez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied asylum and withholding of removal. * No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the IJ’s legal conclusions, including whether a proposed group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the [agency’s] decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a * The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. We will not address this claim, however, because Petitioner raises no challenge to the denial of this form of relief on appeal. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11887 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7 whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “[W]e view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). An asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status with specific and credible evidence. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2005). A “refugee” means a person unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). Petitioner sought asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group comprised of “self-employed vehicle owners recognized by the community [as] drivers who refused to cooperate with the gangs.” In 2012, Petitioner -- who had twelve years’ prior experience as a city bus driver -- bought a car that he used as a taxi. In August 2012, some of Petitioner’s childhood friends began routinely ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals