USCA11 Case: 20-11274 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11274 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A201-705-488 LUIS ALFONSO TIJERINO-SEVILLA, a.k.a. Lolita Tijerino-Sevilla, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 18, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-11274 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Luis Alfonso Tijerino-Sevilla, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of a decision that affirmed the denial of her applications for asylum and for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3), and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Tijerino sought immigration relief based on her membership in the social groups of transgender women, sexual minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in Nicaragua. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed summarily the findings of an immigration judge that Tijerino suffered no past persecution, that she lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution, that she could not satisfy the higher standard required for withholding of removal, and it was unlikely she would be tortured if she returned to Nicaragua. We deny Tijerino’s petition. When the Board of Immigration Appeal affirms a decision of an immigration judge without opinion, we review the immigration judge’s decision. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2006). We review that decision to determine whether it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11274 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 3 of 5 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015)). We will not disturb the decision unless the record “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Tijerino was not entitled to asylum based on past persecution. Tijerino alleged that she was persecuted once as a child, but she omitted that incident from her appeal to the Board. See Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). Tijerino also alleged that, as an adult, she was sexually assaulted by gang members at the direction of the owner of a bar who sought to hire her to work as a prostitute. But Tijerino’s evidence “of private violence . . . [or having] been the victim of criminal activity d[id] not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground,” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006). Tijerino testified that the owner of the bar ordered the attack on her because she refused his offer of employment. See id. at 1257; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Tijerino reported neither attack to the police, see Lopez v. U.S. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals