Delmar Antonio Corrales-Hernandez v. U.S. Attorney General


USCA11 Case: 19-14691 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14691 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-005-099 DELMAR ANTONIO CORRALES-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 18, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-14691 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 2 of 10 Petitioner Delmar Corrales-Hernandez (“Corrales”) seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Corrales’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). Corrales argues that the BIA erred in determining that there was no nexus between his past persecution or fear of future persecution by the MS-13 gang and a protected ground of membership in a particular social group of his family. I. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision to that extent. Id. Here, the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision but agreed with the IJ’s findings regarding a lack of nexus between any past or future persecution and a protected ground. Thus, we review both decisions to that extent. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). On petition for review of the BIA’s decision, we review legal questions de novo. Zhou Hua Zhu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2013). Factual determinations are reviewed under the highly deferential substantial- 2 USCA11 Case: 19-14691 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 3 of 10 evidence test, which requires us to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “We must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. at 1027 (quotation marks omitted). To reverse administrative factual findings, we must determine that the record “compels” reversal, not merely supports a different conclusion. Id. “[T]he mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the [agency’s] findings.” Id. To adequately raise an issue on appeal, the party must “specifically and clearly identif[y] it in its opening brief; otherwise, the claim will be deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020). An applicant for asylum must meet the Immigration …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments