USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-13269 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-427-441 BENSON NDUWUEZE OKPARA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 2, 2021) USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 2 of 8 Before JORDAN, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Benson Nduwueze Okpara petitions us to reverse a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his requests for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), for withholding of removal under the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and for withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). On appeal, Okpara argues that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution in Nigeria. 1 In cases where the BIA has issued its own opinion and reasoning, as here, we review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). We do not consider issues that were not reached by the BIA. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review the BIA’s factual findings only to ensure that they are supported by “substantial evidence.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 1 Okpara has not challenged the IJ’s determination that he is not entitled to withholding of removal under the CAT. Accordingly, we do not address that issue. We decide only whether Okpara has demonstrated eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 3 of 8 (11th Cir. 2009). This standard is highly deferential. Id. We must view the record in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006). Thus, we may not reverse the BIA’s decision unless the evidence as a whole “compels” a different outcome. Chen v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2006). “The mere fact that the record may [also] support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236. The Attorney General may grant asylum to any non-citizen who meets the INA’s definition of a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is defined as: any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals