Case: 17-13475 Date Filed: 06/04/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-13475 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A087-620-761 JESUS BARACALDO-ZAMORA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 4, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 17-13475 Date Filed: 06/04/2018 Page: 2 of 6 PER CURIAM: Jesus Baracaldo-Zamora (“Petitioner”), 1 a native and citizen of Cuba, 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”). We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner entered the United States and received lawful permanent resident status in July 2009. In July 2013, Petitioner was convicted in Florida state court of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. In October 2015, the Department of Homeland Security issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear charging him with being removable for having been convicted of a crime that constituted a controlled substance offense and that involved moral turpitude. Petitioner conceded removability and filed an application seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Following a hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s application. The IJ first determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible. In making that determination, the IJ identified specific portions of Petitioner’s testimony that were either inconsistent with his asylum application or that were implausible. The IJ 1 Petitioner is proceeding pro se on appeal. We review liberally pro se pleadings. See Lorisme v. INS, 129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997). 2 Case: 17-13475 Date Filed: 06/04/2018 Page: 3 of 6 then considered Petitioner’s corroborating evidence, which the IJ found further undermined Petitioner’s credibility given the “significant discrepancies” between the evidence and Petitioner’s testimony. Based on the adverse credibility determination, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum. In the alternative, the IJ determined that -- even accepting Petitioner’s testimony at face value -- Petitioner had failed to demonstrate either that he suffered past persecution or that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution if he was returned to Cuba. Because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, the IJ determined he could not satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal. The IJ also denied CAT relief, concluding that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he more likely than not would be tortured if returned to Cuba. Petitioner appealed to the BIA. In his notice of appeal done with counsel, Petitioner said that the “most pressing” issue on appeal was the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Petitioner contended that, if the BIA reviewed the record in its entirety, “the BIA will see that Appellant and his witnesses are credible people . . . .” Then, in Petitioner’s counseled brief to the BIA, however, Petitioner presented no argument about the IJ’s adverse ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals