Case: 19-12327 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12327 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A042-732-496 CHIN JU LAU, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 15, 2020) Case: 19-12327 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Chin Ju Lau seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lau is a Chinese citizen who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. The Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice to appear and an I-261 form alleging that he was removable for being an alien who knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided another alien in attempting to illegally enter the United States, and because he was convicted of an aggravated felony: conspiracy and attempted smuggling of illegal aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage and financial gain. The IJ issued an oral decision finding that Lau was removable because he committed an aggravated felony, concluding that Lau had not shown a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened on any protected ground were he removed to China. The IJ did not credit his testimony due to a material inconsistency regarding whether he would take his children back to China with him, and denied his applications for relief. And the IJ found that this inconsistency, coupled with Lau’s failure to establish a clear probability of future 2 Case: 19-12327 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 3 of 6 persecution or that his children would accompany him to China, was sufficient to deny Lau’s CAT claims Lau appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal. The BIA stated that Lau did not challenge the IJ’s finding that he was removable because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. It found that, even if his testimony were credible, he would still be subject to removal because he did not establish past persecution. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that Lau did not establish that his children would accompany him to China and trigger persecution because of China’s family-planning policy. And it found that Lau’s CAT claim could not succeed because LAU did not experience past torture and was not likely to be identified as violating China’s family-planning policy. We review the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision, unless it expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion or agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Where the BIA explicitly agrees with the findings of the IJ, we will review the decision of both the BIA and the IJ as to those issues. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Our jurisdiction ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals