Tao Chen v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-11529 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11529 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-471-309 TAO CHEN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 28, 2017) Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tao Chen petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Case: 17-11529 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 Page: 2 of 11 Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). Chen’s application is based on the protest he staged in front of a Chinese city government after he received unfair treatment in a court case seeking relief for an injury he sustained in a traffic accident by a drunk driver. On appeal, Chen argues that because he established past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, and it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to China, the BIA erred in denying his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. After thorough review, we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962, 966-67 (11th Cir. 2012). When the BIA explicitly agrees with the findings of the IJ, we will review the decision of both the BIA and the IJ as to those issues. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). We do not engage in fact-finding on appeal, nor do we weigh evidence that was not previously considered below. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). Factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial-evidence test, which requires us to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The 2 Case: 17-11529 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 Page: 3 of 11 substantial evidence test is deferential and we may not “re-weigh the evidence” from scratch. Mazariegos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). We “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84 (quotation omitted). In order to reverse administrative factual findings, we must determine that the record “compels” reversal, not that it merely supports a different conclusion. Farquharson v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001). The Attorney General has the authority to grant asylum to an alien who meets the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (“INA”) definition of “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is: any person who is outside any ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals