Case: 19-10242 Date Filed: 02/14/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10242; 19-10256 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency Nos. A206-915-669; A206-915-670 NOEMI SERRANO GARCIA, JAYDEN ZURIEL ORTIZ SERRANO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ Before WILSON, ANDERSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Noemi Serrano Garcia (“Serrano”) and her minor child, Jayden Ortiz Serrano (“Ortiz”) (collectively, the “Petitioners”) appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order that affirms the denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Case: 19-10242 Date Filed: 02/14/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), and that denies their motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Petitioners argue that: (1) their Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court due to its failure to list a time, date, and place to appear; (2) the immigration judge (“IJ”) violated their due process rights when it precluded Serrano from pursuing her own asylum application -- with Ortiz as a rider -- in an independent hearing, and when it failed to give Serrano additional time to obtain documents in support of their application after learning that Serrano’s uncle had died, and the record does not contain the transcripts of previous master hearings or Serrano’s credible fear hearing transcript, which support that her own claims were not properly considered; and (3) the IJ erred in denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal in finding no past persecution despite the daily threats with a deadly weapon and extortion they suffered, and in finding that their particularized social group was not cognizable. After careful review, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. See Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). We review questions of statutory interpretation and other issues of law de novo. De Sandoval v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2006). A factual determination by the BIA that an alien is statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal is 2 Case: 19-10242 Date Filed: 02/14/2020 Page: 3 of 8 reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 (11th Cir. 2001). This means that the reviewing court must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. Id. at 1284. Insofar as the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we will review the IJ’s decision as well. Id. We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect thereto. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals