USCA11 Case: 21-10073 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10073 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ELSY NOHEMY MARTINEZ-BOBADILLA, CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER MONCADA-MARTINEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-545-450 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10073 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10073 Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Elsy Martinez-Bobadilla, on behalf of herself and her son (collectively, “Martinez Bobadilla”), both Honduran citizens, peti- tions this Court for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting the decision of an immigration judge to deny her application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 The immigration judge denied relief after concluding, inter alia, that Martinez-Bobadilla had not shown past persecution based on a political opinion and, since there was no past persecution, there was no presumption that she had a well-founded fear of fu- ture persecution. The immigration judge noted that Martinez- Bobadilla remained in the same town in Honduras for two months after she stopped working for a targeted organization, during which time neither she nor her coworkers suffered any harm. The immigration judge also noted that the organization had since shut down, so Martinez-Bobadilla would not be working with it in the 1 Martinez-Bobadilla also sought relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Pun- ishment (“CAT”). Both the immigration judge and the BIA, however, denied the CAT claim. But Martinez-Bobadilla makes no argument challenging the CAT denial on appeal. Because she does not challenge the denial of the CAT claim on appeal, she has abandoned any issue as to the denial of CAT relief in her case. See Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 797 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016). USCA11 Case: 21-10073 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 3 of 7 21-10073 Opinion of the Court 3 future. Ultimately, the immigration judge concluded that Mar- tinez-Bobadilla did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. Martinez-Bobadilla now argues that the immigration judge’s order reflects a lack of reasoned consideration. She further argues that the record did not support the immigration judge’s finding that she lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. 2 The govern- ment, in turn, responds that we lack jurisdiction to consider her first argument because she did not raise it before the BIA. We address each of these points in turn. I. We review our own subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). When appropriate, we will likewise review an argu- ment that the agency failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). We may review a final order of removal only if the peti- tioner has exhausted “all administrative remedies available to [her] …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals