USCA11 Case: 21-10373 Date Filed: 11/22/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10373 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MIMA LISSETH LAZO-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-103-419 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10373 Date Filed: 11/22/2021 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10373 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: Mima Lazo-Velasquez seeks review of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), with- holding of removal under the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief 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 her petition, Lazo-Velasquez argues that: (1) the Agency erred in denying her asylum and withholding of re- moval claims because the IJ erred in determining that her proposed particular social group -- female students without male protection -- was not cognizable; (2) the Agency wrongly determined that she failed to satisfy the nexus requirement for her asylum and with- holding of removal claims; (3) she met her burden for withholding of removal under the INA because she established that she experi- enced past persecution and that the Salvadoran government is un- able and unwilling to protect her; and (4) the Agency erred in deny- ing her CAT relief because the IJ erroneously found that the gov- ernment would not acquiesce to her torture if she were removed to her home country of El Salvador. After thorough review, we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., USCA11 Case: 21-10373 Date Filed: 11/22/2021 Page: 3 of 8 21-10373 Opinion of the Court 3 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s findings but makes additional observations, we review both de- cisions on those issues. Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). Issues that the BIA did not reach in the first instance are not properly before us, and we will not consider them. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Factual determinations, including nexus determinations, are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2013). Under this highly deferential standard, we “must affirm the BIA’s factual find- ings so long as they are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Lin- geswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). We “review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable in- ferences in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals