Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12690 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A202-143-834 AIDA MAGALI PEREZ-AGUSTIN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 19, 2020) Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Aida Perez-Agustin, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). She claims that the IJ’s finding that her testimony was not credible was erroneous. She also asserts that the BIA erred in concluding that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, as her proposed particular social group—“indigenous women from Guatemala, who are native Mam speakers, who are victims of sexual violence”—is legally cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For the following reasons, we affirm the BIA’s decision and deny Perez-Agustin’s petition. I. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it adopts the IJ’s decision expressly or agrees with its reasoning. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). If the BIA made no ruling on an issue, “[t]hat issue is therefore not before us on this appeal.” Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, the BIA did not rule on the IJ’s credibility finding. In fact, for purposes of its analysis, it assumed that Perez-Agustin was credible. Therefore, we 2 Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 3 of 5 do not review Perez-Agustin’s challenge to the IJ’s credibility finding; it is not properly before us on appeal. II. When a petitioner fails to raise an issue on appeal, that issue is deemed abandoned, and its merits will not be addressed. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013). The petitioner must raise an issue “plainly and prominently,” such as by discussing it in a discrete section of her argument. Id. However, a pro se petitioner’s brief is liberally construed. Lorisme v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997). Underlying both asylum and withholding of removal claims is a nexus requirement. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (conditioning a grant of asylum on an applicant’s showing that a statutorily protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”); INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (requiring withholding of removal if an applicant shows that her “life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of” a statutorily protected ground). For CAT relief, the applicant bears the burden to prove “that it is more likely than not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals