Antonio Avila Gutierrez v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12448 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-860-739 ANTONIO AVILA GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 21, 2020) Before LAGOA, EDMONDSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges. Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 2 of 8 PER CURIAM: Antonio Gutierrez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (“CAT”). * No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA adopts expressly the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the BIA agreed expressly with the IJ’s reasoning in this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See id. We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions. Id. We review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable * The IJ also denied Petitioner’s application for asylum. Petitioner raises no challenge to the denial of this form of relief on appeal; we will not address that claim. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 3 of 8 inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact finding, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). To obtain withholding of removal, an alien must establish that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “The alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is ‘more likely than not’ [he] will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned to [his] country.” Tan v. United States Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). To satisfy this burden, the alien must demonstrate either past persecution based on a protected ground or that he will more-likely-than-not suffer future persecution on account of a protected ground. Seck v. United States Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1365 (11th Cir. 2011). To establish eligibility for CAT relief, an alien must show “that it is more likely than not that ...

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