Case: 17-15428 Date Filed: 12/18/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15428 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-603-526 GANESH ACHARYA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 18, 2018) Case: 17-15428 Date Filed: 12/18/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Before MARCUS, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ganesh Acharya (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and reasoning in this case, we review both the BIA and the IJ’s decisions. See Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1153 (11th Cir. 2014). We review de novo legal determinations of the BIA. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Factual determinations are reviewed under the “highly deferential” substantial evidence test; and we must “affirm the . . . decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). “Under the substantial evidence test, we view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all 2 Case: 17-15428 Date Filed: 12/18/2018 Page: 3 of 6 reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “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). An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status with specific and credible evidence. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. An asylum applicant who has established past persecution on account of a protected ground is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution on the basis of the original claim. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1); Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2016). The government may rebut this presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, either (1) a fundamental change in the country’s conditions such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution, or (2) that relocation within the country would avoid future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), (B); Tan, 446 F.3d at 1375. In determining whether changed country conditions exist, the BIA must ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals