USCA11 Case: 21-10131 Date Filed: 11/19/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10131 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NORMA ALICIA CAMPOVERDE-PANORA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-889-234 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10131 Date Filed: 11/19/2021 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10131 Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Norma Alicia Campoverde-Panora seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Im- migration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and with- holding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Campoverde-Panora claims the BIA violated her due pro- cess rights by failing to consider whether she was persecuted on account of membership in a particular social group (PSG) that she articulated for the first time on appeal to the BIA. Noting that she had no attorney at her merits hearing before the IJ, she contends the BIA’s requirement that an asylum applicant provide an exact delineation of her PSG before the IJ disregards the normal rules re- garding waiver and sets an often impossibly high bar for pro se ap- plicants to satisfy. After review, 1 we deny her petition. To establish a due process violation in removal proceedings, “aliens must show that they were deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the asserted errors caused them substantial 1 We review only the decision of the BIA, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review constitutional challenges de novo.” Lonyem v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). “To the extent that the BIA’s deci- sion was based on a legal determination, [our] review is de novo.” D-Mu- humed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). USCA11 Case: 21-10131 Date Filed: 11/19/2021 Page: 3 of 6 21-10131 Opinion of the Court 3 prejudice.” Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2003). Even when an agency fails to follow its own rules or regulations, a due process claim does not automatically arise be- cause the root requirements of due process require only that one be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Hakki v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veteran Affs., 7 F.4th 1012, 1030 n.13 (11th Cir. 2021). As a rule of practice, appellate courts generally will not consider a legal issue unless it was presented to the trial court. Dean Witter Reyn- olds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944) (“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a . . . right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals