USCA11 Case: 21-11045 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11045 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANGELINA MARCOS-PABLO, DOMINGA JULIAN-MARCOS, JOVANI JULIAN-MARCOS, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. USCA11 Case: 21-11045 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11045 ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-116-972 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Angelina Marcos-Pablo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and her two children, as her derivative beneficiaries, petition for review of the order affirming the denial of her applications for asy- lum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Na- tionality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treat- ment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231. The Board of Immi- gration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge that Marcos- Pablo was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal be- cause she failed to prove that her daughter was kidnapped on ac- count of her membership in a particular social group or her politi- cal opinion. The Board also agreed that Marcos-Pablo was not tor- tured and was unlikely to be tortured if she returned to Guatemala. We deny the petition. USCA11 Case: 21-11045 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 3 of 6 21-11045 Opinion of the Court 3 When the Board affirms the immigration judge’s decision, we review both their decisions. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Our review is “limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” under which we must affirm the decision so long as it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under that test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the immigration judge and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. at 1236. We can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, Marcos- Pablo had to prove that she was persecuted or is likely to face fu- ture persecution in Guatemala “on account of . . . [her] member- ship in a particular social group, or [her] political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Both forms of immigration relief “contain a causal element known as the nexus requirement,” under which an appli- cant must prove “that a protected ground ‘was or will be at least one central reason for’” her persecution. Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals