USCA11 Case: 20-12211 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12211 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-002-514 JUANA LOPEZ-JUAN,1 SANTIAGO ALVARADO-LOPEZ, LORENA NOHEMI ALVARADO-LOPEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 1, 2021) 1 The Clerk’s Office is directed to correct the caption of this appeal as reflected in our opinion. USCA11 Case: 20-12211 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 2 of 9 Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Juana Lopez-Juan, proceeding pro se as the lead petitioner, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications, on behalf of herself and her two children, for 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). After a thorough review of the parties’ briefing and the record, we dismiss in part and deny in part Lopez-Juan’s petition.2 I. We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, arguments not raised in a pro se petitioner’s initial brief are deemed abandoned. Ruga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 757 F.3d 1193, 1196 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”); e.g., Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1305 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“Rodriguez did not challenge the denial of CAT 2 Lopez-Juan did not file a brief in reply to the government’s response brief. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12211 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 3 of 9 relief before the BIA or in his brief to this Court. Therefore, we do not address his CAT claim.”). Likewise, when a petitioner “makes only a passing reference in [her] brief” to an issue, that issue is also deemed abandoned. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009); e.g., Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1152 n.12 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Wu and Zhang have abandoned any claim regarding their eligibility for CAT relief because, on appeal, they make only a one-sentence passing reference to this issue.”). A simple statement in a brief “that an issue exists, without further argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes our considering the issue on appeal.” Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). II. Our jurisdiction is limited to those issues that the petitioner has exhausted in the immigration administrative process. We “may review a final order of removal only if . . . the [noncitizen] has …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals