USCA11 Case: 20-14232 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-14232 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-866-644 EULALIA GARCIA-GARCIA, FELIX JOEL FRANCISCO-GARCIA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 19, 2021) Before JORDAN, GRANT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eulalia Garcia-Garcia (“Garcia”) and her minor child, Felix Francisco- Garcia, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, USCA11 Case: 20-14232 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 11 withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). In her petition, Garcia argues that: (1) the BIA erred by denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) because she suffered past persecution based on her Mayan race; (2) the BIA also erred by denying her application because she established an individualized, well-founded fear of future persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecution of indigenous people in Guatemala; and (3) the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to her CAT claim and erred by denying her CAT relief. After careful review, we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion or reasoning. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). When the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Id. We review the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA has agreed with the IJ and found that the IJ’s reasoning was supported by the record. See Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011). We do not consider issues that were not reached by the BIA. See id. at 1369. Further, the BIA generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. In re J---Y--- C---, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (declining to consider the respondent’s claim that she was eligible for asylum based on her mother’s death from a forced 2 USCA11 Case: 20-14232 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 11 sterilization procedure because that claim was never raised before the IJ). When a petitioner fails to offer an argument on an issue in her initial brief to us, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings under the highly deferential “substantial evidence test.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We also review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not entitled to CAT relief. Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1257 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals