Case: 18-11905 Date Filed: 04/09/2020 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11905 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-734-479 MATEO PABLO-RAFAEL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 9, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11905 Date Filed: 04/09/2020 Page: 2 of 4 Mateo Pablo-Rafael seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA concluded that Pablo-Rafael’s asserted social group—persons sought to be recruited by the Maras gang, where police either acquiesced or were complicit—was not a cognizable particular social group. Pablo-Rafael asserts that because the BIA made this determination without including any specific references to the facts of his case, the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his arguments and applied an incorrect per se rule that social groups based on gang activity necessarily lack particularity or social distinction. After review, we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). An assertion that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue is a question of law that we review de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The BIA must consider all evidence that an applicant has submitted. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). However, where the BIA “has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address specifically each 2 Case: 18-11905 Date Filed: 04/09/2020 Page: 3 of 4 claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.” Id. (quotations omitted). The BIA does not give reasoned consideration to a claim when it misstates the contents of the record, fails to adequately explain its refusal of logical conclusions, or provides justifications for its decision that are unreasonable and that do not respond to any arguments in the record. Id. at 1375-77. In all three of these circumstances, there is “some irreconcilable tension between the [BIA’s] opinion and the record evidence” such that we, looking at the record and the BIA’s opinion, are forced “to doubt whether we and the [BIA] are, in substance, looking at the same case.” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2019). The BIA gave reasoned consideration to Pablo-Rafael’s case. See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374 (explaining to show reasoned consideration, the BIA must “consider the issues raised and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”). Although the BIA’s decision did not discuss any specific facts of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals