USCA11 Case: 20-13707 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13707 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ RUTH MARICELA FLORES GARMENDIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-448-330 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13707 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 20-13707 Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ruth Maricela Flores Garmendia and her son, Noe Rodri- guez Flores (as a derivative beneficiary of her asylum application) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Na- tions Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). After careful review, we dismiss Garmendia’s petition in part as to her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims and deny it in part as to her CAT claim. The facts are known to the parties, and we repeat them here only as necessary to resolve the case. I Garmendia first asserts that the IJ improperly denied her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. In denying her application for asylum, the IJ concluded, in relevant part, that Garmendia did not establish a nexus to a pro- tected ground. The IJ also separately denied her application for asylum because she failed to identify a particular social group to which she belonged. Because the IJ determined that Garmendia failed to meet the burden of proof for asylum, it concluded that she USCA11 Case: 20-13707 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 3 of 8 20-13707 Opinion of the Court 3 also necessarily failed to meet the higher burden required for with- holding of removal. We typically review only the final decision of the BIA, but when the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision on an issue, we will review the IJ’s decision on that issue, as well. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). Review of the BIA’s de- termination of legal questions is de novo. Id. Factual findings by the BIA, however, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007). We review our own subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We do not consider issues not decided by the BIA. Gon- zalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We may review a final order of removal only if the petitioner has exhausted her administrative remedies. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). When a petitioner fails to assert an error before the BIA and then attempts to raise that error before this Court, she has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 800. It …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals