Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-10924/USCOURTS-ca11-23-10924-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicolas Elpidio Manbru-Encarnacion
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10924

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

NICOLAS ELPIDIO MANBRU-ENCARNACION, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A030-850-491

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 1 of 24
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Nicolas Elpidio Manbru-Encarnacion petitions for review of 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his 

motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He argues that he presented the BIA with sufficient new evidence to warrant reopening 

the proceedings on his application for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c). He also argues that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of his counsel. After careful review, we deny the

petition for review. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Manbru-Encarnacion, a native and citizen of the Dominican 

Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent 

resident on or about June 8, 1972. He was last admitted to the 

United States on November 22, 1992, in New York, New York. In 

2018 and 2019, the Department of Homeland Security served him 

with documents alleging that he was removable on various 

grounds. After several continuances, Manbru-Encarnacion, represented by counsel, conceded that he was removable as charged. He 

conceded that he had convictions for grand larceny, criminal possession of a weapon, obtaining a credit card through fraudulent 

means, conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery, and making a 

false statement in an application for a passport.

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 2 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 3

Manbru-Encarnacion applied for relief from removal under 

the CAT. His application stated that he had received death threats 

in the past from Cesar Perez, Santiago Luis Polanco (“Yayo”), Benji 

Herrera, and other members of “the Wild Cowboys” gang

(“TWC”) because he had cooperated with the United States government as a confidential informant. He argued that these individuals would kill him and his family if he were to return to the Dominican Republic because there was a bounty on his head for his 

work as a confidential informant.1 

Manbru-Encarnacion submitted evidence in support, including a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) which 

stated that he had been a confidential informant but that it was not 

currently aware of any threats of injury to him if he were deported 

to the Dominican Republic. He also submitted various news articles and documentary evidence about TWC and the leaders of the 

gang. Declarations by several individuals in the Dominican Republic represented that Yayo had influence in the current government 

of the Dominican Republic and Perez worked at the airport and 

had government connections as well. Country conditions evidence showed that, while the government had acted to punish officials who committed human rights abuses, there were reports of 

1 Manbru-Encarnacion’s initial application also presented claims based on his

religion. However, he did not press his religion-based claim, either before the 

agency, in his motion to reopen, or before us. Thus, that claim is abandoned. 

See Alkotof v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 106 F.4th 1289, 1295 n.9 (11th Cir. 2024). 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 3 of 24
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

official impunity, corruption, and the torture, beating, and physical 

abuse of detainees and prisoners. 

An affidavit from Manbru-Encarnacion explained that, in the 

late 1980s, he became a confidential informant with the FBI’s New 

York Field Office. He had attended the same high school as individuals within TWC. Yayo was the leader of the gang and Perez 

was one of the men who helped Yayo launder money. In the 1990s, 

Manbru-Encarnacion assisted the FBI’s investigation of a murder, 

served as a material witness, and was discovered to be such by 

members of TWC. He explained that, subsequently, a TWC member shot at him while he was driving. After he moved away from 

New York, Perez began calling his then-wife and threatening her. 

Perez told him that there was a price on his head and later he found 

out that, from another gang member, Perez had paid someone to 

stab him while he was in prison. After his release from prison, the 

threats continued, and Perez posted photos online of Manbru-Encarnacion with a noose around his neck. 

Manbru-Encarnacion submitted emails apparently from Perez that reflected that he knew who Manbru-Encarnacion was and 

where he lived. The emails contained statements like “[y]our job 

is to steal from idiots and run and hide and my work is finding you 

to pay for what you stole from me,” and “[w]e are investigating 

your whereabouts and where you are, we are going to let you 

know who is Nicholas Manbru-Encarnacion. A scammer, thief, 

con artist, a scourge, and an antisocial.” 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 4 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 5

At a merits hearing in February 2020, Manbru-Encarnacion 

appeared but his retained counsel was not present. The attorney 

who did appear, an associate from the same firm, moved for a continuance to allow Manbru-Encarnacion’s attorney to appear. The 

IJ denied the continuance, noting that the case had already been 

continued several times. 

Manbru-Encarnacion then testified to the facts in his application. Relevantly, he stated that he did not have any associations 

with any cartels in the Dominican Republic and had never worked 

for a cartel, but he had received threats from them, as well as from 

people connected with the government. The threats warned that 

he and his family would be killed or tortured if they went to the 

Dominican Republic. He had been receiving threats since the 

1990s, but, in 2009, after he and his now-ex-wife started a Christian 

ministry, the threats became so frequent that they would not answer their home phone. Individuals then started calling his ex-wife 

on her cell phone and “making all kind of threats and things like 

that, saying that [he] was a rat, and that they were going to kill 

[him], that they were going to kill [his] family, . . . and that they 

were just waiting for [him] to go to the Dominican Republic.” He 

stated that “[t]hey have people working in the government with 

them.” He clarified that he had been receiving threats from TWC 

for being a confidential informant for the FBI. He stated that TWC 

knew he was an informant because of corrupt cops on their payroll. 

Manbru-Encarnacion explained that a member of TWC “took a 

shot at” him and blew the back window off his vehicle. He moved 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 5 of 24
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

away from New York and later learned that TWC had put a price 

on his head. 

Manbru-Encarnacion described how, when he lived in the 

Bronx, he had been kidnapped from his liquor store, and then was 

taken to the District Attorney’s office in the Bronx, where he encountered cops that were associated with TWC. He then tried to 

relocate from New York to Florida, and then went to prison in 

2005. He contended that people in the government knew he was 

in removal proceedings. He testified that, if returned to the Dominican Republic, he would be kidnapped and killed because of his 

cooperation. While he was in detention, he was visited by a special 

agent from the FBI who said he was concerned about him going 

back to the Dominican Republic, and also by an agent from the 

State Department who shared these sentiments. He also argued 

that the record evidence showed that TWC was dangerous and had 

power within the Dominican Republic. He emphasized that he believed that he would be killed if he returned to the Dominican Republic. When asked whether his family had ever been threatened, 

he responded that he had “always protected [his] family” and 

shielded his past from them, but he believed they would be put in 

danger if he was returned to the Dominican Republic. 

While Manbru-Encarnacion was testifying and responding 

to questions from the IJ, retained counsel arrived and, after a short 

break, stated that she had been in contact with the FBI about Manbru-Encarnacion’s informant work, and that she needed to make a 

formal request to the Attorney General. Manbru-Encarnacion’s 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 6 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 7

counsel explained that she was seeking information about the connection between Perez and Yayo, and whether they were linked to

the assistance that Manbru-Encarnacion had provided to the FBI. 

She argued that both men were aware of Manbru-Encarnacion’s 

work as an informant, as shown by Perez’s threats, and that Yayo 

was safe in the Dominican Republic, which showed that the government was protecting him. When asked about the lack of explicit 

threats in the emails from Perez, Manbru-Encarnacion’s counsel 

responded that she thought “a lot of it [was] implied.” When asked 

about the FBI letter that stated it was not currently aware of any 

threats of injury against Manbru-Encarnacion, she indicated that 

she was still looking for Manbru-Encarnacion’s FBI file. She also 

acknowledged that, though his identity was alluded to, ManbruEncarnacion was not directly named in the excerpts from the Wild 

Cowboys book. She again requested a continuance and the IJ 

granted the motion. 

Before the continued merits hearing, Manbru-Encarnacion 

discharged counsel and, ultimately, appeared pro se at the continued merits hearing. At the second hearing, Manbru-Encarnacion 

submitted other evidence, specifically, excerpts from a book about 

TWC, additional emails from Perez, and country conditions evidence. 

After the continued merits hearing, the IJ denied ManbruEncarnacion’s application. It first determined that, after considering the totality of the circumstances, Manbru-Encarnacion’s testimony was not credible. It found that, while Manbru-Encarnacion 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 7 of 24
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

had provided in his application that he had received death threats 

in the past from Perez and testified that he was personally confronted by him in Washington Heights, he then testified on crossexamination that Perez did not harm or threaten to harm him during their encounter. As to Manbru-Encarnacion’s reliance on the 

Wild Cowboys book as evidence his role as an informant was publicly known in the Dominican Republic, the IJ noted that ManbruEncarnacion’s name did not appear in any of the excerpts from the 

book. In other words, it found, there was no evidence of a connection between Manbru-Encarnacion and TWC. Next, while Manbru-Encarnacion testified that TWC knew his address and telephone number, the IJ noted that he had conceded that the gang 

never harmed or attempted to harm him while he was in Florida 

and that he was not fearful of the gang while he lived there. The IJ 

found the letter from the FBI to be “[m]ost damaging” to his credibility. It then noted that Manbru-Encarnacion had a history of 

making false statements to United States officials, as shown by his 

convictions for making false statements to obtain a passport and 

presenting himself as a United States citizen. 

The IJ next found Manbru-Encarnacion’s corroborative evidence unconvincing. First, it determined that, rather than bolstering his testimony, the letter from the FBI discredited Manbru-Encarnacion’s claim of future harm. The IJ reiterated that the excerpts from Wild Cowboys did not name or identify him and found

the emails that Manbru-Encarnacion presented as proof of threats 

to his safety did not contain threats. Finally, as to the letters containing information about criminals in the country, it decided that 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 8 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 9

these letters did not attribute their information to any source, 

much less a credible, objective one. The IJ found that Manbru-Encarnacion’s corroborative evidence failed to overcome his disbelieved testimony and, when coupled with the adverse-credibility 

finding, the lack of reliable corroborative evidence doomed his

CAT claim. 

The IJ recognized that country conditions evidence showed 

corruption within the Dominican Republic government and a link 

between some government-sponsored security forces and torture 

of Dominican citizens. However, it found that this was not enough 

to meet Manbru-Encarnacion’s burden of proof, as a pattern of human rights violations alone was insufficient to show that ManbruEncarnacion was in danger of being tortured; there had to be evidence that he would be personally at risk of torture by or with the 

acquiescence of the government. It determined that Manbru-Encarnacion had not presented credible evidence to that effect and his 

claim was “overly speculative.” Thus, it denied Manbru-Encarnacion’s application and ordered him removed to the Dominican 

Republic. 

Manbru-Encarnacion, still proceeding pro se, administratively appealed to the BIA. He stated that he had been detained 

throughout his removal proceedings and that he had provided vital 

evidence to his counsel that was never included in the record. He 

asserted that he had not received a copy of his file until April 1, 

2020, and that he had not been properly prepared to testify. He 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 9 of 24
10 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

argued that he strongly believed that his record was incomplete 

and insufficient for the IJ to make an informed decision on his case. 

Manbru-Encarnacion also filed a brief in support of his appeal claiming his counsel had been ineffective. He asserted that he 

did not receive proper preparation from his counsel prior to his final hearing, and that it was clear from the record that he was deprived of fair legal representation. He contended that he and his 

family had reached out to her via emails, phone calls, and letters, 

but that he never received any confirmation or acknowledgment

of the receipt of these letters from his attorney. He argued that he 

had never been provided with the exhibits then presented on his 

behalf to the IJ, and that his counsel failed to present the Wild Cowboys book, which was vital evidence, and that counsel had failed to 

present other evidence that he had provided to her. He contended 

that his attorney had failed to appropriately inquire with the Attorney General as to his informant file. In support, Manbru-Encarnacion attached evidence, including: emails to his former counsel’s

office; a letter from his former counsel; excerpts from Wild Cowboys; the FBI’s 2020 letter; a description by Manbru-Encarnacion of 

some of Perez’s emails; several news articles; an excerpt from Wild 

Cowboys describing the methods of torture used by the Dominican 

Republic government; and a letter from Manbru-Encarnacion asking the agency to grant his application and raising claims about his 

attorney’s representation.

In April 2021, the BIA dismissed Manbru-Encarnacion’s administrative appeal. It explained that Manbru-Encarnacion did not 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 10 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 11

“meaningfully challenge the substantive grounds on which the [IJ] 

denied his application for protection under the CAT,” abandoning 

the issue. Instead, it noted, Manbru-Encarnacion had raised a claim 

for ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the BIA denied that 

claim because Manbru-Encarnacion had not complied with the 

procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 

(BIA 1988), overruled in part by Matter of Compean, 24 I. & N. Dec. 

710, 710 (A.G. 2009), reinstated, 25 I. & N. Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009). Even 

if the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada had been satisfied, it explained, Manbru-Encarnacion had not shown prejudice. 

Specifically, it noted that the IJ allowed the parties to thoroughly 

develop the record; allowed his former counsel to make arguments 

after arriving late to the merits hearing; and permitted Manbru-Encarnacion to provide more testimony and documents while proceeding pro se. Manbru-Encarnacion did not seek review of the 

BIA’s April 2021 decision. 

In June 2021, Manbru-Encarnacion, represented by counsel,

moved to reopen. He argued that the evidence he had submitted 

showed that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured

if he were removed to the Dominican Republic. He contended that 

errors by his attorney and by the IJ had prevented his case from 

being fairly heard. He alleged that there was a clear connection 

between the various TWC members that he had “snitched on and 

who he fear[ed] will kill him” in the Dominican Republic, and that 

those connections were substantiated by his affidavit, a letter from 

the FBI, emails, and excerpts from books describing TWC. He 

maintained that one or more persons in the Dominican Republic 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 11 of 24
12 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

connected to TWC—Cesar Perez, Yayo, and Ruben—will torture 

him “on account of [him] having worked as an FBI confidential informant.” He reiterated that Cesar had directly threatened him 

twice and had stalked and threatened him over several years. He 

contended that men in the Dominican Republic would kill him, 

and the government would acquiesce to his torture. He further 

alleged that TWC members enjoyed impunity in the Dominican 

Republic and pointed to Yayo’s short imprisonment for serious 

crimes there, which he argued showed acquiescence. 

Manbru-Encarnacion also reiterated his contentions that his 

initial counsel was ineffective. He contended that his attorney 

failed to prepare him for his hearing, failed to promptly obtain evidence he needed, failed to appear on his behalf during the merits 

hearing, and allowed an associate who did not control or guide his 

testimony to conduct his direct examination. He contended that 

these failures prejudiced him and that he, essentially, was forced to 

appear pro se at his merits hearing. He explained that, had his attorney competently prepared his case and showed up on time, his 

CAT claim would have been clearly presented and would have 

been granted. Finally, Manbru-Encarnacion argued that he had satisfied the procedural requirements to bring an ineffective assistance 

claim under Matter of Lozada. Relatedly, he argued that the IJ 

abused its discretion in allowing his “stand-in” counsel to proceed 

with his case. 

Manbru-Encarnacion also attached various evidence to his 

motion to reopen to corroborate some of his testimony, and to 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 12 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 13

elaborate on his ineffective assistance claim. More recent country 

conditions evidence showed that, while the government of the Dominican Republic had sought to punish officials who had committed human rights abuses, reports of official impunity and corruption remained widespread. Another affidavit by Manbru-Encarnacion described the facts of his testimony in greater detail and further described the threats he had received. A 2021 letter from the 

FBI stated that Manbru-Encarnacion had been an informant from 

2001 to 2004, and that, while it was “not currently aware of any 

threats of injury, [he] could be exposed to risk should he be deported to the Dominican Republic given the nature of the assistance he provided.” News articles, maps, and charts provided various details about TWC. However, according to a letter his former 

counsel filed in response to the ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim, counsel believed Manbru-Encarnacion’s application lacked 

evidentiary support and that he had little chance of success on his 

CAT claim. 

The BIA denied Manbru-Encarnacion’s motion to reopen in 

February 2023. It noted that many of the submitted documents 

were duplicative of those the IJ considered. It concluded that, even 

if Manbru-Encarnacion’s newly presented evidence was not previously available because of ineffective assistance of counsel, Manbru-Encarnacion had not established that this evidence was likely 

to change the outcome of his case. It concluded that Manbru-Encarnacion had not presented evidence to show that government officials in the Dominican Republic would consent or acquiesce to 

any harm committed against him by private actors in the country, 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 13 of 24
14 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

e.g., TWC. As to the other evidence relating to events in the 1990s 

and 2010, the BIA reasoned that it did not show that current Dominican government officials would consent or acquiesce to harm 

done to Manbru-Encarnacion. It noted that the 2020 Human 

Rights Report revealed that the current Dominican government 

was trying to combat corruption by government officials. Accordingly, the BIA concluded that Manbru-Encarnacion had not shown 

a sufficient likelihood that the new evidence would have changed 

the result in his case and that, similarly, but for his former counsel’s 

deficiencies, he would have prevailed. The BIA also declined to 

revisit its prior decision on the fairness of the proceedings before 

the IJ. 

Manbru-Encarnacion timely petitioned for review of the 

BIA’s decision. 

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an 

abuse of discretion, although we “review any underlying legal conclusions de novo.” Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 40 F.4th 

1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. dismissed, 143 S. Ct. 1102 (2023). 

When reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we ask whether the BIA 

exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. Ferreira v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2013). The BIA can abuse 

its discretion by misapplying the law in reaching its decision, or by 

failing to follow “its own precedents without providing a reasoned 

explanation for doing so.” Id. A petitioner bears a heavy burden 

to show arbitrariness or capriciousness in this context because 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 14 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 15

motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored. Mei Ya 

Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). We 

review the legal question of whether a petition for review is exhausted de novo. See Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 33 F.4th 1303, 1307 

(11th Cir. 2022), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria 

v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419-23 & n.2 (2023).

III. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Manbru-Encarnacion first concedes that he 

never petitioned for review of the BIA’s 2021 decision. Still, he argues that we must review his underlying administrative appeal that 

led to the 2021 decision in order to determine whether the BIA 

abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. He argues, 

specifically, that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding should be given 

particular attention in considering his motion to reopen. In other 

words, he stresses, we must determine whether the evidence in the 

motion to reopen would have altered the adverse credibility determination in assessing whether it would change the outcome. 

As to the merits of his ineffective assistance claim, ManbruEncarnacion argues that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to consider 

the prejudice caused by the IJ’s decision to proceed without his chosen counsel present. He asserts that the IJ also never determined 

whether his testimony, standing alone, supported a favorable credibility determination and, instead, determined the lack of corroborating evidence to be determinative. He states that the IJ never 

concluded that his testimony was internally inconsistent or inconsistent when compared with the other record evidence. He also 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 15 of 24
16 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

argues that his conviction for making false statements to obtain a 

United States passport “does not ipso facto mandate an adverse credibility determination.” He maintains that the credibility determination was based on his inability to fully present his claim because 

of ineffective assistance and that this Court should grant his petition to allow him a meaningful opportunity to present his CAT 

claim. 

As to the new evidence he submitted in his motion to reopen, Manbru-Encarnacion argues that he put forward a sufficient

explanation of why the individuals he fears want to harm him and 

the reason the Dominican government would either assist or acquiesce in those harms. He argues that evidence in the record 

shows a pattern of human rights abuses in the Dominican Republic, and contends that the new evidence he submitted established

that the government would approve or consent to those abusive 

practices being used against him. 

The government, in response, states that Manbru-Encarnacion’s petition for review fails for procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally, it agrees that, because Manbru-Encarnacion 

did not petition for review of the BIA’s prior decision, the sole question before this Court is whether the BIA abused its discretion in 

denying his motion to reopen. It asserts that Manbru-Encarnacion 

improperly raises challenges to determinations made by the agency 

in his first administrative appeal and fails to contest the BIA’s decision on his motion to reopen, which concluded that he had failed 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 16 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 17

to demonstrate a prima facie case for CAT relief. It argues these 

arguments are unexhausted. 

Substantively, the government argues that the BIA did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding that the new evidence Manbru-Encarnacion presented failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of changing the result in his case. It asserts that much of the 

evidence that Manbru-Encarnacion presented to “materially enhance” his claim had already been reviewed by the IJ and found 

insufficient to meet his burden. The government further asserts 

that the evidence Manbru-Encarnacion submitted was largely duplicative, and none of it established an objective, direct link between him and TWC or its members, or established a direct link 

between Perez and TWC or Yayo. It contends that the evidence 

also failed to establish that the Dominican government would consent or acquiesce to any feared harm by TWC. It maintains that, 

even with other evidence of threats, Manbru-Encarnacion failed to 

show a reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome of his case. 

It reiterates the BIA’s observation that the current country conditions that Manbru-Encarnacion presented with his motion did not 

support his claim because it reflected that the Dominican Republic 

was affirmatively trying to combat corruption, even if its efforts 

had not been successful. It asserts that governmental ineffectiveness at preventing private actors from torturing others is not official acquiescence. It argues the BIA reasonably concluded that the 

record did not demonstrate a government official in the Dominican 

Republic would consent or acquiesce to any harm to Manbru-Encarnacion. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 17 of 24
18 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

A. Exhaustion

Section 1252(d)(1) of the INA provides that a court can review a final order of removal only if the noncitizen “has exhausted 

all administrative remedies available to the [noncitizen] as of 

right.” INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We have held that 

“[a] petitioner has not exhausted a claim unless he has both raised 

the core issue before the BIA, and also set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations and internal quotations 

omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria, 

598 U.S. at 419-23 & n.2.2 However, exhaustion is “not a stringent 

requirement.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 

(11th Cir. 2015), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria, 

598 U.S. at 419-23 & n.2. “Simply put, petitioners must have previously argued the ‘core issue now on appeal’ before the BIA.” Id.

(quoting Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1224, 1228 n.3 

(11th Cir. 2008)). Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is a 

claims-processing rule, so we generally apply it when it has been 

asserted by a party. Kemokai v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 83 F.4th 886, 891 

(11th Cir. 2023).

Here, the government argues that aspects of Manbru-Encarnacion’s petition for review are unexhausted, specifically because 

2 In 2023, the Supreme Court held that the obligation to exhaust administrative remedies in § 1252(d)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional 

limitation, and is subject to waiver and forfeiture, overturning our prior precedent to the contrary. Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 419-23 & n.2. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 18 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 19

Manbru-Encarnacion did not petition for review of the 2021 BIA 

decision. We conclude Manbru-Encarnacion’s arguments are exhausted. In his motion to reopen, Manbru-Encarnacion asked the 

BIA to consider his new evidence in light of the IJ’s original rulings 

and, thus, his request that we do the same is part of the “core issue 

now on appeal.” Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. Of course, as both 

parties agree, we lack jurisdiction to “review earlier trips through 

immigration proceedings.” Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

881 F.3d 860, 870 (11th Cir. 2018). However, we may consider 

Manbru-Encarnacion’s arguments about the underlying proceedings in determining whether the BIA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting his arguments about those proceedings in his 

motion to reopen. Ferreira, 714 F.3d at 1243. We, therefore, turn 

to the merits of that question.

B. Motion to Reopen & Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant must show that 

he more likely than not will be tortured if removed to the proposed 

country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). All relevant evidence must be considered, including his ability to relocate and human rights violations within the country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). 

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1), “torture” is defined as: 

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether 

physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her 

or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 19 of 24
20 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

has committed or is suspected of having committed, 

or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any 

kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by, or at 

the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence 

of, a public official acting in an official capacity or 

other person acting in an official capacity. 

To acquiesce, an official must, before the torture: (1) actually know 

of the torture, or be aware of its high probability and deliberately 

avoid learning the truth, and (2) breach his legal responsibility to 

intervene. Id. § 1208.18(a)(7). Officials do not acquiesce under the 

CAT if they intervene but are unsuccessful. See Sanchez-Castro v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[E]ven if [a 

petitioner] were right that the police are not effective at controlling 

[organized crime], it is dispositive that they are trying to do so.”); 

Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2004)

(“That the police did not catch the culprits does not mean that they 

acquiesced in the harm.”). 

A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be 

proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be 

supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” INA 

§ 240(c)(7)(A), (B), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (B); Verano-Velasco v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 2006). Motions to 

reopen may be granted if there is new evidence that “is material 

and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(1),

1003.23(b)(3). Evidence is “new” if it was unavailable or could not 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 20 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 21

have been presented before the IJ. Verano-Velasco, 456 F.3d at 1377. 

In addition, a petitioner must present new evidence that would 

likely change the outcome if proceedings before the IJ were reopened. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 813 (11th Cir. 2006). The 

BIA may deny a motion to reopen on any of three independent 

grounds: “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, 

failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, and 

a determination that even if these requirements were satisfied, the 

movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief 

which he sought.” I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). 

If a motion to reopen is based on ineffective assistance of 

counsel, the movant must show, “substantial, if not exact compliance with the procedural requirements of [Matter of] Lozada,” and 

that “his counsel’s deficient representations resulted in prejudice to 

him.” Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2005). 

To show prejudice, a movant must show that “the performance of 

counsel is so inadequate that there is a reasonable probability that 

but for the attorney’s error, the outcome of the proceedings would 

have been different.” Id.

We conclude that Manbru-Encarnacion has not shown the 

BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. The 

evidence Manbru-Encarnacion submitted to the agency in his motion to reopen falls into two categories: first, evidence that had not 

previously been before the agency—“new” evidence—and, second, evidence submitted with the motion to reopen that was identical or substantially similar to the evidence the IJ had considered 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 21 of 24
22 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

in denying Manbru-Encarnacion’s application for CAT relief in the 

first instance. We address these two categories of evidence in turn

and then address his ineffective assistance argument.

As to the evidence that Manbru-Encarnacion presented in 

his motion to reopen that was new, we cannot conclude that the 

BIA abused its discretion. Specifically, this evidence did not show 

a link between TWC and the government of the Dominican Republic sufficient to show acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(7). The letter from the FBI does not 

show a link between TWC and the Dominican government, as the 

letter only indicates that Manbru-Encarnacion could be exposed to 

harm should he be deported. The letter from Manbru-Encarnacion’s ex-wife, while also new, covers much of the same ground 

as the evidence submitted previously to the IJ. Thus, the BIA did 

not abuse its discretion in concluding that this new evidence would 

not have likely changed the result of the proceedings, Ali, 443 F.3d

at 813, because it is still insufficient to prove that the Dominican 

government has a relationship with TWC such that it would acquiesce to his torture, Sanchez-Castro, 998 F.3d at 1288; Reyes-Sanchez, 

369 F.3d at 1243. Without this relationship element satisfied, further development of this claim would not have changed the outcome. Cf. Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 413, 420 (BIA 1996) (stating, in reviewing a motion to reopen, the question is “whether 

there is sufficient evidence proffered to indicate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues further at a full evidentiary hearing”).

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 22 of 24
23-10924 Opinion of the Court 23

The second category of evidence Manbru-Encarnacion submitted with his motion to reopen—evidence that was identical or 

substantially similar to the evidence the IJ considered in denying 

his application for CAT relief in the first instance—also does not 

show the BIA abused its discretion. This evidence was not “new,” 

as is necessary to support a motion to reopen under BIA regulations. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(1), 1003.23(b)(3); Verano-Velsaco, 

456 F.3d at 1376-77 (explaining that evidence is “new” when it “was

unavailable at the time of [the petitioner’s] previous hearing”). 

Moreover, because the IJ and BIA had considered substantially similar evidence during the initial denial and found it did not show

Manbru-Encarnacion’s entitlement to CAT relief, the consideration of it again was unlikely to change the outcome either. See Ali, 

443 F.3d at 813. 

We also conclude that Manbru-Encarnacion’s ineffective assistance argument is unavailing.3 For many of the same reasons we 

have discussed, Manbru-Encarnacion has not established that he 

was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged deficiencies. See Dakane, 

399 F.3d at 1274 (“Prejudice exists when the performance of counsel is so inadequate that there is a reasonable probability that but 

3 In ruling on his motion to reopen, the BIA determined that Manbru-Encarnacion had satisfied the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, but that 

he had not shown prejudice from any deficiency of his attorney. We, similarly,

need not address the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, as we agree 

with the BIA’s holding on prejudice. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 

(1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 23 of 24
24 Opinion of the Court 23-10924

for the attorney’s error, the outcome of the proceedings would 

have been different.”). Even after Manbru-Encarnacion’s original

counsel withdrew, he had the opportunity to enter more evidence

before the IJ issued a written decision and in his first administrative 

appeal. Then, Manbru-Encarnacion had the opportunity to submit 

more evidence in his motion to reopen. Given that Manbru-Encarnacion has not shown that all of the evidence submitted—during 

his administrative appeal and during his motion to reopen—establish that he is entitled to CAT relief, counsel’s failure to obtain and 

submit that evidence in Manbru-Encarnacion’s initial proceedings

before the IJ did not alter the outcome of the proceedings. Id. For 

the same reasons, counsel’s failure to direct and elicit testimony 

during the hearing would not have altered the outcome of the proceedings, as Manbru-Encarnacion was afforded opportunities to 

supplement his testimony, did so, and that evidence was found insufficient. We, thus, cannot say the BIA abused its discretion in 

finding that Manbru-Encarnacion did not suffer prejudice from his 

attorney’s performance.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we conclude that Manbru-Encarnacion 

has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review. 

PETITION DENIED. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10924 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 24 of 24