USCA11 Case: 21-13957 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13957 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOSE FRANCISCO ALVARADO-GUIFARRO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-714-831 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13957 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 21-13957 Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Alvarado-Guifarro seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). He argues that the BIA and the immigration judge erred in finding that the harm he experienced in Honduras did not rise to the level of persecution and that the harm was not on account of his belonging to a particular social group, the Alvarado family. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. I. “When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that deci- sion, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the [immigra- tion judge’s] decision.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). When the BIA agrees with the immigration judge’s findings but makes additional observations, we review both decisions. Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). Additionally, issues not reached by the BIA are not properly before us. Gonzalez 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 alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to him as a matter of right. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The exhaustion requirement is USCA11 Case: 21-13957 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 Page: 3 of 8 21-13957 Opinion of the Court 3 jurisdictional and precludes review of a claim that was not pre- sented to the BIA, even if the BIA reviews the issue sua sponte. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006). In a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review conclu- sions of law de novo and factual determinations under the substan- tial evidence test. Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403.. Under the substantial evidence test, “we view the record evidence in the light most fa- vorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). We will affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (quoting Al Naj- jar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 (11th Cir. 2001)). The record must compel a contrary conclusion to warrant reversal. See id. The …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals