FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 85 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -7 21 -6 34 YURY MABEL ARCHAGA-PONCE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 3 0, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Yury

Mab el Arch ag a-Po nc e, a n at iv e an d c it iz en of Ho nd ur as , see ks rev ie w of th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) fin al ord er d is m is si ng he r ap pe al of th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . The BI A de te rm in edth atArch ag a-Po nc e was no t el ig ib le forwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se sh e fai le d t o d em on st rat e a n ex us be twee n a ny harm th atsh e su ffer edor m ig ht su ffer

an d ast atut or il y

pro te ct edgro un d. Be cau se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce supp orts th atde te rm in at io n, we d en y Arch ag a-Po nc e’s pe ti ti on . Whe re t he BIA is su es it s o wn o pi ni on , we rev ie w on ly tha t o pi ni on , exc ep t to th e ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g. Ka ze mza de h v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e rev ie w th e BIA’s
co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo an d i ts fin di ng s o f fac t fo r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Id
. Und er s ub st an ti al ev id en ce re vi ew, we co ns id er “ ‘the reco rdev id en ce i n t he li gh t
m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t d eci si on .’ ” Id
. at13 51 (qu ot in g Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc )). The refo re, we wil l re ve rs e th e ag en cy ’s fin di ng s on ly if th e ev id en ce co m

pe ls us to do so . Id
.

“ To o bt ai n wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an app li can t m us t es tabl is h t ha t h er ‘lif

e orfree do m

wou ldbe th reat en edin [he r co un try of rem ov al ] be cau se of [ he r] race, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al

2op in io n.’” Ta n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 6 F .3d13 69 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (s eco nd

al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A)). An ap pl ic an t m ay sa ti sf y he r bu rd en of p ro of

ineit he r of

two way s: (1) by establ is hi ng pa st pe rs ecu ti on in he r co un try bas edon a pr ot ect edgro un d; or ( 2) by establ is hi ng th at itis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atsh e wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou ndup on rem ov al to th atco un try. Id
. A “pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up ” ref ers to pe rs on s wh o s ha re a co m m on , imm

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c “ th atth e m em be rs of t he gr ou p e it he r can no t ch an ge , or s ho ul d n ot be requi redto ch an ge be cau se itis fu nd am en ta l t o t he ir i nd iv idua l i de nt it ie s o r co ns ci en ces .” Ca st il lo -Ari as v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 93 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (di sc us si ng an d a do pt in g t he BIA’s de fin it io n o f “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” ). Arch ag a-Po nc e is a vi ct im of d om es ti c v io le nc e, an d s he cla im s t ha t s he an d vi ct im s l ik e h er co ns ti tu te a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . She arg ue s m em be rs hi p i n th is so ci al gro up , in tu rn , est ab li sh es th e req ui redne xu s b et ween th e h arm sh e su ffer edor m ig ht su fferan d ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d, s uc h t ha t wi th ho ld in g of rem ov al is ap pr op ria te . Bas edon ou r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ 1 On appe al, Arc hag a-Ponce does not contest the B IA’s conc lusion that her application 1 for a sylum was time-bar

red, nor she does dispute the de nial of Convention Ag ainst Torture r elief; there fore , she has a

bandoned those claims. See D jonda v. U.S. Att’y G en. , 514 F.3d 1168, 1173 3br ie fs , we agr ee wi th th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n t o t he co nt rary andco nc lu de th at

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rte d i ts ord er d is m is si ng Arch ag a-Po nc e’s ap pe al
. Acco rd in gl y , we den y

he r pe ti ti on forrev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

(11th Cir. 2008). Even if Archa g a-Ponce had pre serve d her a sylum claim, we lac k jurisdiction to revie w the B IA’s conc lusion that her untimely application for

asylum was not excused. See Sanchez J imenez v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 ( 11th Cir. 2007). Additionally , althoug h Arc hag a-Ponce focuse s primarily on the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination in her brief

, we de cline to re view that findingbeca use the B IA did not reviewit. See Ruiz v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 762, 765 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (statingthat this Court reviews only the BIA’s finding s and conc lusions ex cept those e x pressly adopted f rom the I J ’s orde r). Similarly , we de cline to addr ess Arc hag a-Ponce ’s claim that she w as har med on ac count of he r political opinion because she did not raised it bef ore the I J . See G alindo-Del Valle v. A tt’y Ge n. , 213 F.3d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 2000) (pe r cur iam), supersede d on other grounds by statute as stated in, Balogun v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 425 F.3d 1356, 1359 ( 11th Cir. 2005); see also In reR-S-H , 23 I . & N. Dec . 629, 638 (B .I .A. 2003) (holdingan alien “ waived his opportunity to pursue [an] is sue on appea l” by

not raisingthe issue at the he aringbefor e the I J ). Finally , we will not addre ss Archa g a-Ponce ’s claim that the immigr ation proce eding s violated her

rig ht to due proce ss, or her pa ssing state ment that her br other wa s killed in the United States and that his killers ar e now in Hondur as, bec ause the se asse rtions are devoid of a ny argument and, as suc h, are insufficient to be c onsidered on a ppeal. See Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y G en. , 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 4