Case: 19-14168 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14168 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-133-355 MAGDALENA JUAN-PEDRO, SANDRA YULISSA TOMAS-JUAN, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 28, 2020) Before LAGOA, BRASHER and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-14168 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Magdalena Juan-Pedro, 1 a native and citizen of Guatemala who speaks Konjobal, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s order, affirming the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. She argues that: (1) the BIA violated her due process rights by affirming the IJ’s adverse- credibility finding, which was based on her unresponsive or confused answers that she says were caused by the interpreter’s mistranslations; (2) the BIA erred in denying her application because her testimony was not inconsistent or contradictory and she clarified her answers when asked. After careful review, we deny the petition. “We review only the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. Insofar as the Board adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we will review the IJ’s decision as well.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). In this case, we review both the BIA and IJ decisions because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning and factual findings. See id. We review constitutional challenges de novo. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). We review factual findings, including credibility determinations, under the substantial-evidence test, in which an agency decision “can be reversed only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find 1 Juan-Pedro is the lead respondent in this case, and the other respondent is her minor daughter, whose claims rest upon those of her mother. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A)). 2 Case: 19-14168 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 3 of 8 otherwise.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). 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). First, we are unpersuaded by Juan-Pedro’s claim that the BIA violated her due process rights by affirming the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding. We’ve held “that the Fifth Amendment entitles petitioners in removal proceedings to due process of the law.” Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). A petitioner alleging a due process violation “must show that she was deprived of liberty without due process of law and that the purported errors caused her substantial prejudice,” which means that, “in the absence of the alleged violations, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. “Due process is satisfied only by a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals