Case: 19-10271 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10271 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-677-626 MARIA CASTRO FLORES, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 23, 2019) Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-10271 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Maria Castro Flores, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). On appeal, Flores argues that, while she cannot establish that she suffered past persecution or that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on any of the statutory grounds for asylum, she presented a credible claim for protection under CAT. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. 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. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). Additionally, any arguments not raised 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). A CAT determination is a mixed question of law and fact. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 532-33 (11th Cir. 2013). The question of whether the undisputed facts from the administrative record constitute “torture” is a legal determination, while all other questions in the CAT context are factual ones. See id. We review questions of law de novo. Id. at 523. We review factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test, which requires affirmance of 2 Case: 19-10271 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 3 of 5 the agency’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). “In making out a claim under CAT, the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1303 (quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). To constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(5). Additionally, the alien must demonstrate a likelihood that she will be tortured with the acquiescence of the government, “meaning that the government was aware of the torture, yet breached its responsibility to intervene.” Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007). An alien must also establish that she “would be individually ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals