Christian Arturo Lopez-Arevalo v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-13309 Date Filed: 06/27/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-13309 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-752-974 CRISTIAN ARTURO LOPEZ-AREVALO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 27, 2018) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-13309 Date Filed: 06/27/2018 Page: 2 of 7 Christian Arturo Lopez-Arevalo (“Arevalo”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) determination that he did not establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). On appeal, Arevalo argues that his credible testimony that the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS- 13”) threatened to harm his family if they did not repay money that his brother had stolen, that the family fled from their home to avoid harm, and that the gang killed his uncle shortly after Arevalo left El Salvador provided substantial evidence for a finding that he suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his family relationship with his brother. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision or relied on its reasoning. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Here, the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s opinion or rely on its reasoning, and thus we review only the BIA’s decision. Id. In a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review conclusions of law de novo and factual determinations under the substantial evidence test. Id. Issues not decided by the BIA are not properly before this Court. Id. In addition, where the agency does not discredit an asylum seeker’s testimony, we accept that testimony as credible. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. 2 Case: 17-13309 Date Filed: 06/27/2018 Page: 3 of 7 Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1354 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the government could not argue on appeal that an asylum seeker’s testimony was less than credible where neither the BIA nor the IJ discredited his testimony). The substantial-evidence test requires us to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026−27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 817–18 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). To reverse fact findings, we “must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). The Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals