Case: 18-13229 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 1 of 19 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13229 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-150-695 ZAYDA MENESES-FUNEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 1, 2019) Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13229 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 2 of 19 Zayda Meneses-Funez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). On appeal, she argues that the IJ erred when it determined that she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because it refused to consider changing circumstances and the fact that the guerrilla group that attacked her was now affiliated with the ruling party in Nicaragua. She also argues that the IJ erred when it refused to recognize her particular social group of surviving witnesses of criminal activity because it was not overbroad, it was based on an immutable characteristic, and it was socially visible. Meneses-Funez argues that the IJ and BIA erred in denying her humanitarian asylum because she could show severe harm and long-lasting effects. Finally, she argues that the IJ and BIA also erred in denying her withholding of removal because she had established past persecution and that she did not waive her CAT claim. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Where instead the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision only to the extent of the agreement. Ayala v. U.S. 2 Case: 18-13229 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 3 of 19 Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). We may only review fully exhausted claims, which must have been brought before the BIA for consideration. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). Additionally, any arguments not raised before us on an appeal from the BIA’s order are deemed abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). The IJ’s factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Id. at 1230. We must affirm a fact-finding “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). Under this highly deferential standard of review, we view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. Thus, an IJ’s decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals