Case: 17-14847 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 1 of 42 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14847 ________________________ Agency No. A208-172-899 GLORIA DIAZ-RIVAS, LILIANA SOFIA GUTIERREZ DIAZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 18, 2019) Before JORDAN, GRANT, and BALDOCK, ∗ Circuit Judges. GRANT, Circuit Judge: ∗Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 17-14847 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 2 of 42 Gloria Diaz-Rivas seeks review of a final order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 Diaz-Rivas argues that the BIA erred in concluding (1) that part of her testimony was not credible and (2) that she failed to establish that she was persecuted because of her membership in a particular social group. She also asserts that the Immigration Judge (IJ) who heard her case denied her due process and equal protection of the laws. Because the record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s factual findings and because Diaz-Rivas’s constitutional challenges lack merit, we deny the petition for review. I. Diaz-Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, arrived in the United States on May 13, 2015. About one month later, U.S. immigration officials conducted a “credible fear interview” to assess her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires an alien seeking asylum to establish that she was persecuted “on account of” her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Similarly, an applicant for withholding of removal must 1 Diaz-Rivas’s daughter, Liliana Sofia Gutierrez Diaz, seeks relief as a derivative beneficiary of Diaz-Rivas’s asylum application and so her claim rises or falls with Diaz-Rivas’s request. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). Her derivative claim does not encompass Diaz-Rivas’s claim for withholding of removal. See Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding that “there are no derivative benefits associated with a grant of withholding of removal”). Moreover, Diaz-Rivas did not challenge the IJ’s denial of her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture and so we, like the BIA, consider that issue waived. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 2 Case: 17-14847 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 3 of 42 show that her life or freedom would be threatened “because of” one of these protected grounds. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). During the credible fear interview, Diaz-Rivas stated that she fled El Salvador because members of the gang MS-13 threatened to kill her family. According to Diaz-Rivas, the gang kidnapped and killed her brother-in-law, Fidel, for failing to pay extortion money, then threatened her family after they reported his disappearance to the police. When the interviewing officer asked whether she feared returning to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals