USCA11 Case: 20-10752 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10752 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A075-463-040 MARDO ALEXANDER ADAME-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 7, 2020) Before WILSON, LUCK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mardo Adame-Rodriguez, a citizen of Colombia, seeks review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order, denying his applications for withholding of USCA11 Case: 20-10752 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 2 of 13 removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). In his petition, Adame-Rodriguez argues that: (1) substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that he was not targeted on account of a political opinion, he had not suffered past persecution, and he could safely relocate; (2) the BIA did not give reasoned consideration to his evidence; and (3) the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s decision to give little weight to his expert witness’s opinion in denying CAT relief. After careful review, we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts, agrees, or relies on the IJ’s reasoning and findings. Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1153 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948-51 (11th Cir. 2010). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and reasoning concerning whether Adame-Rodriguez suffered past persecution, was targeted on account of a political opinion, and was entitled to CAT relief, we review the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions together in this case. We review the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to view the record in the light most favorable to the BIA’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10752 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 3 of 13 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). We will affirm the BIA’s decision if, on the record as a whole, it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. Adefemi, 386 F.3d. at 1027. In order to reverse administrative factual findings, we must conclude that the record “compels” reversal, not merely that it supports a different result. Id. Our inquiry asks “whether there is substantial evidence for the findings made by the BIA, not whether there is substantial evidence for some other finding that could have been, but was not, made.” Mazariegos v. Office of U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Castillo Arias v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals