Case: 17-12201 Date Filed: 02/05/2018 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12201 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-280-454 GLENDA ROSIBEL MOLINA-RIVERA, JOSTIN DANERY CASTRO-MOLINA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 5, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12201 Date Filed: 02/05/2018 Page: 2 of 11 Glenda Rosibel Molina-Rivera and her minor son, Jostin Danery Castro- Molina, who are natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of Molina-Rivera’s application for asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Molina-Rivera’s application based on its conclusions that she was not credible, had failed to establish a nexus between the alleged harm and a statutorily protected ground, and had failed to establish that she would, more likely than not, be subjected to torture with the acquiescence of a public official upon her return to Honduras. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment in an immigration appeal. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). When the BIA adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s findings or reasoning, we review both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the adoption or agreement. Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Here, because the BIA did not explicitly agree with or adopt the IJ’s 2 Case: 17-12201 Date Filed: 02/05/2018 Page: 3 of 11 reasoning, we will review only the BIA’s decision. See Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403; Singh, 561 F.3d at 1278. We review factual determinations, including credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254– 55 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We must affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. We will view the record evidence “in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1255. Accordingly, in order for us to conclude that a finding of fact should be reversed, we must determine that the record “compels” reversal. Id. “[T]he mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal.” Id. Credibility is judged using a totality of the circumstances test, and a trier of fact may base a credibility determination upon several factors, including the witness’s demeanor and candor, the inherent implausibility of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals