Case: 17-15387 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15387 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-842-067 KAPUR LAMA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 13, 2018) Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15387 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 2 of 10 Kapur Lama, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Lama principally argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he failed to show that the government of Nepal is unable or unwilling to protect him from persecution by the Maoist political faction because of his participation in the affairs of a rival party, the Nepal Congress Party. Lama also argues that the IJ abused its discretion and denied him due process by refusing to continue his final hearing so that he could obtain a new attorney and documents to support his claims for relief. We will address each contention in turn. I We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). To the extent the BIA adopts the reasoning of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as well. Id. Here, because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the IJ and BIA. See id.; see also Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1153 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have found that the BIA 2 Case: 17-15387 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 3 of 10 expressly adopted an IJ’s decision where the BIA either agreed with the IJ’s findings or relied on the IJ’s reasoning ….”). We review factual determinations under the substantial-evidence standard, which requires us to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable” to the BIA’s decision and to “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To reverse a factual determination, we “must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). We do not re-weigh the evidence that was before the BIA. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). We must affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). A An alien who arrives in or is present in the United States ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals