Liu Yanni v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 16-10885 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-10885 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A201-084-315 LIU YANNI, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 1, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-10885 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 Page: 2 of 13 Liu Yanni 1 seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c), and cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). She argues that the BIA in finding the untimeliness of her application because she demonstrated both changed circumstances permitting a late application and a well-founded fear of future persecution. She also contends that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s decision that she failed to present corroborating evidence supporting her withholding of removal claim. Finally, she argues that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s determination that her removal would not cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her children. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we deny Liu’s petition in part and grant it in part. Because she failed to challenge the IJ’s determination regarding the untimeliness of her asylum application before the BIA, she did not exhaust her administrative remedies. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to review her asylum claim. Additionally, substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s 1 The record refers to the petitioner inconsistently as “Liu” or “Yanni.” This opinion refers to her by her family name, Liu. 2 Case: 16-10885 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 Page: 3 of 13 decision that the IJ did not clearly err by denying her withholding of removal claim based on her failure to provide corroborating evidence that showed a clear probability of persecution if she were removed because the IJ and the BIA ignored important evidence of persecution. Because the BIA did not review it, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s credibility determination. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision denying Liu’s application for cancellation of removal. We remand to the BIA for a decision regarding withholding of removal that considers all of Liu’s evidence and, if necessary, reviews the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. I. We review our own subject-matter jurisdiction regarding the BIA’s decision about the timeliness of an application for asylum de novo. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). An application for asylum must be filed within one year of entering the United States. INA § 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). However, untimely ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals