Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12690
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A202-143-834
AIDA MAGALI PEREZ-AGUSTIN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 19, 2020)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Aida Perez-Agustin, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). She claims that the IJ’s finding that
her testimony was not credible was erroneous. She also asserts that the BIA erred
in concluding that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum and withholding
of removal, as her proposed particular social group—“indigenous women from
Guatemala, who are native Mam speakers, who are victims of sexual violence”—is
legally cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For the
following reasons, we affirm the BIA’s decision and deny Perez-Agustin’s
petition.
I.
We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it adopts
the IJ’s decision expressly or agrees with its reasoning. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y
Gen.,
820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). If the BIA made no ruling
on an issue, “[t]hat issue is therefore not before us on this appeal.” Donawa v. U.S.
Att’y Gen.,
735 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2013).
Here, the BIA did not rule on the IJ’s credibility finding. In fact, for
purposes of its analysis, it assumed that Perez-Agustin was credible. Therefore, we
2
Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 3 of 5
do not review Perez-Agustin’s challenge to the IJ’s credibility finding; it is not
properly before us on appeal.
II.
When a petitioner fails to raise an issue on appeal, that issue is deemed
abandoned, and its merits will not be addressed. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
712 F.3d
517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013). The petitioner must raise an issue “plainly and
prominently,” such as by discussing it in a discrete section of her argument.
Id.
However, a pro se petitioner’s brief is liberally construed. Lorisme v. I.N.S.,
129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997).
Underlying both asylum and withholding of removal claims is a nexus
requirement. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (conditioning
a grant of asylum on an applicant’s showing that a statutorily protected ground
“was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”); INA §
241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (requiring withholding of removal if an
applicant shows that her “life or freedom would be threatened . . . because of” a
statutorily protected ground). For CAT relief, the applicant bears the burden to
prove “that it is more likely than not that . . . she would be tortured if removed to
the proposed country of removal.” Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
369 F.3d
1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
3
Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 4 of 5
Here, we conclude that Perez-Agustin failed to plainly and prominently
raise, and therefore abandoned, any argument that she is entitled to relief under
CAT or that the BIA erred in concluding that she did not establish a nexus between
her alleged persecution or threat thereof and membership in a particular social
group. Together, these failures to raise issues are dispositive of all three of her
claims.
Even if we concluded that Perez-Agustin raised these issues, under the most
liberal construction of her brief, her claims still fail. In examining the BIA’s
decision, we review factual determinations under the substantial evidence test and
conclusions of law de novo.
Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403.
Starting with the CAT claim, we simply cannot say that the BIA erred in
concluding that Perez-Agustin did not present evidence that she would be tortured
upon returning to Guatemala, whether by the government or with its acquiescence.
As for nexus, at best, Perez-Agustin argues that she offered evidence that her rapist
covered her mouth during the rape, and that the fact shows that she was raped
because of her status as a native Mam speaker. Again, we see no error in the
BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show nexus. In the end, however we get there,
Perez-Agustin’s claims fail on these bases.
One last note. We need not address Perez-Agustin’s argument that she is a
member of a particular social group: “indigenous women from Guatemala, who are
4
Case: 19-12690 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 5 of 5
native Mam speakers, who are victim[s] of sexual violence.” But, in any event, the
BIA correctly concluded that Perez-Agustin’s proposed social group was not
cognizable because it is impermissibly defined in part by the alleged persecution.
See Amezcua-Preciado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
943 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2019)
(per curiam) (“[T]he risk of persecution alone does not create a particular social
group within the meaning of the INA.” (internal quotation mark omitted)). This is
yet another reason why both Perez-Agustin’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Accordingly, we deny Perez-Agustin’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
5
