Karen Gissel Gonzalez-De Moreira v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 18-15302 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15302 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A202-002-848 KAREN GISSEL GONZALEZ-DE MOREIRA, BRYAN ALEJANDRO ABREGO-GONZALEZ, RAFAEL EDUARDO MOREIRA-GONZALEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 9, 2019) Case: 18-15302 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 2 of 9 Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Karen Gonzalez-De Moreira (“Petitioner”) and her two minor sons, 1 natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition 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 asylum and withholding of removal.2 No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that 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 parts of 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, including whether a proposed group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the Immigration and 1 Petitioner’s application sought derivative relief for her two sons, B.A. and R.E., who are listed as petitioners in this appeal. B.A. also filed his own application for asylum and for withholding of removal. 2 The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. We will not address this claim, however, because Petitioner and B.A. do not challenge the denial of this form of relief on appeal. See Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 18-15302 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 3 of 9 Nationality Act (“INA”). Gonzalez v. United States Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Although our review is de novo, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the phrase “particular social group” if the BIA’s interpretation is reasonable. Id. at 404. 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 inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact determination, 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). An alien may obtain asylum if she is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to her country of nationality “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including ...

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