Maria Elena Menjivar-Sibrian v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-12207 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12207 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-760-469 MARIA ELENA MENJIVAR-SIBRIAN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 22, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12207 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 2 of 7 Maria Menjivar-Sibrian (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied asylum and withholding of removal. 1 No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA adopts expressly the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the BIA agreed expressly with the IJ’s reasoning in this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See id. We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions, including whether a proposed group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Gonzalez v. United States Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Although our review is de novo, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of applicable statutes if the BIA’s interpretation is reasonable. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. 1 The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. We will not address this claim, however, because Petitioner failed to challenge this denial in her appeal to the BIA and has failed to raise the issue on appeal. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. United States Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 17-12207 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 3 of 7 We review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the . . . decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). An alien may obtain asylum if she is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to her country of nationality “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status with specific and ...

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