Case: 19-14078 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14078 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-212-499 JORGE ADALVERTO RAMIRES-RIVERA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 11, 2020) Before WILSON, LAGOA and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-14078 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 2 of 10 Jorge Adalverto Ramires-Rivera seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as his request for administrative closure. On appeal, Ramires-Rivera argues that, as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA erred by adopting the IJ’s determination that he failed to show the requisite nexus between his particular social group and his past persecution, claiming he was attacked based on his refusal to join gangs as an ex- military member. He also argues that he is entitled to CAT relief because, inter alia, the IJ erred by finding that he had not established that public officials would acquiesce or had acquiesced to his torture. Finally, Ramires-Rivera argues that we should remand the case to the BIA or the IJ to reconsider his request to administratively close his removal proceedings in light of Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019), which rejected Matter of Castro Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (AG 2018), a decision holding that IJs and the BIA do not have the general authority to administratively close cases. After review,1 we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. 1 We review only the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision, unless it expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion or agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). When the BIA adopted or agreed with the reasoning of the 2 Case: 19-14078 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 3 of 10 As brief background, Ramires-Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without authorization in 2004. In July 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He conceded removability and filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. In his application, Ramires-Rivera stated that he and members of his family had been attacked by gang members in El Salvador because he, as a former member of the Salvadoran military, refused to join the gang. I. ASYLUM & WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL The IJ—whose reasoning the BIA adopted—found Ramires-Rivera had demonstrated that he suffered past persecution and that his status as a former member of the Salvadoran military qualified as membership in a particular social group. Ruiz v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals