USCA11 Case: 20-12440 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12440 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-026-344 HUGO LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 1, 2021) Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 20-12440 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 2 of 10 PER CURIAM: Hugo Lopez-Sanchez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA adopts expressly the IJ’s decision. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Because the BIA agreed expressly with parts of the IJ’s reasoning in this case, we review the IJ’s decision to the extent of that agreement. See id. We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions, including whether a proposed group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See id. Although our review is de novo, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the phrase “particular social group” if the BIA’s interpretation is reasonable. See id. at 404. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12440 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 3 of 10 We review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We “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 1027. To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). When -- as in this case -- the IJ makes no express credibility determination, we accept the applicant’s testimony as credible. See Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2007). An applicant seeking withholding of removal must establish that his “life or freedom would be threatened” in his country based on a statutorily protected ground, including membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that he “more- likely-than-not would be persecuted or tortured” if returned to his country. Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011). To satisfy this burden, the applicant must demonstrate either past persecution based on a protected ground or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals