Julienne Andre v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 18-11782 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11782 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-836-369 JULIENNE ANDRE, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 7, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Julienne Andre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order that affirmed the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, Case: 18-11782 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 2 of 4 and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). The Board of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judge found Andre not credible. The Board also agreed with the immigration judge’s alternative findings that Andre was ineligible for asylum after having firmly resettled in Brazil and that she failed to establish her membership in a cognizable social group or that she was harmed on account of a protected ground. Andre challenges the denial of her post-hearing motion to file additional evidence, the adverse credibility finding, and the alternative grounds for denying relief. We dismiss in part and deny in part Andre’s petition. The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by denying as untimely Andre’s motion to file additional evidence. Federal regulations give immigration judges control over removal proceedings, including the right to “set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). We cannot classify as arbitrary and capricious the immigration judge’s refusal to accept documents that Andre sought to file almost two months after her evidentiary hearing. See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2009). Andre argues that the failure to consider her evidence deprived her of a “fundamentally fair hearing in the removal 2 Case: 18-11782 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 3 of 4 proceedings,” but we lack jurisdiction to review an argument that Andre did not raise in her appeal to the Board, see Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006), and dismiss this part of Andre’s petition. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Andre was not credible, and the immigration judge identified specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). There were numerous inconsistencies in Andre’s testimony, her statements to interviewers, and her corroborating evidence about why she left Haiti, about being assaulted on September 16, 2014, and December 3, 2014, and about her father’s disappearance. Andre told a border agent that she left Haiti due to economic hardship and that she had no fear of being harmed in her homeland, which was strikingly different from her later accounts that she fled Haiti to avoid imminent death at the hands of her uncle who had ...

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