USCA11 Case: 22-12998 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12998 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SINTIAN ROSIBEL VALLECILLOS-TORRES, FRANCIS XIOMARA VALLECILLOS-TORRES, KENSY XIOMARA LICONA-VALLECILLOS, NEYLI NICOL LICONA-VALLECILLOS, YOSEPH MANUEL VALLECILLOS-TORRES, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12998 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12998 Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-435-412 ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sintian Vallecillos-Torres (“Sintian”) and her son Yoseph, as well as Francis Vallecillos-Torres (“Francis”) and her children Kensy and Neyli (collectively the “Petitioners”), natives and citi- zens of Honduras, seek review of the decision of the Board of Im- migration Appeals (the “BIA”) affirming the denial of their applica- tions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, In- human, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CAT”). Pe- titioners argue that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination of Sintian was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the rec- ord compels a finding that they were eligible for asylum, withhold- ing of removal, and CAT relief. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) opinion. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s findings but makes additional observa- tions, we review both decisions. Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). USCA11 Case: 22-12998 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 3 of 8 22-12998 Opinion of the Court 3 Factual determinations, which include credibility determi- nations, are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006) (per cu- riam). Under this highly deferential standard, we will affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and pro- bative evidence on the record considered as a whole. I.N.S. v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 (1992). Under the substantial evidence test, we “review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasona- ble inferences in favor of that decision.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, a finding of fact will be reversed only when the record “compels” it, not merely because the record may support a contrary conclusion. Id. (quotation marks omitted). An applicant for asylum must meet the Immigration and Na- tionality Act’s (the “INA”) definition of a refugee. INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as follows. [A]ny person who is outside any country of such per- son’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals