[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14973

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200-117-964

JOSE CRISTIAN ARGUETA-MARTINEZ, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 6, 2020)

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Argueta-Martinez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s

(BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) and for relief under the United Nations Convention against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). 

Argueta-Martinez argues that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and CAT relief because his family faces persecution from MS-13 gang members in 

El Salvador. He also argues that he is entitled to humanitarian asylum. 

The IJ held that Argueta-Martinez’s claims were time-barred, that his 

testimony lacked credibility, and that his claims failed on the merits, in any event. 

The BIA held that under INS v. Bagamasbad, it did not need to “need not decide 

whether [Argueta-Martinez’s] asylum application [was] time barred or whether his 

testimony was credible because [it] discern[ed] no error in the [IJ’s] alternative 

denial of the asylum claim on its merits.” BIA Order Dismissing Appeal at 2 

(citing Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (holding that “courts and agencies are 

not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 

results they reach”)). We agree and affirm.

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 2 of 7 
3

I

“[W]e review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA 

expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488

F.3d 884, 890 (11th Cir. 2007). “We must affirm the decision . . . if it is supported 

by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

A

The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who meets the 

INA’s definition of a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), which is defined 

as:

Any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality

. . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or 

unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 

because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.

Id. at § 1101(a)(42)(A).

An applicant must therefore demonstrate that he (1) was persecuted in the 

past on account of a protected ground or (2) has a “well-founded fear” that he will 

be persecuted in the future on account of a protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 3 of 7 
4

To establish eligibility for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future 

persecution, “an applicant must demonstrate that his . . . fear of persecution is 

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 

1262, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001). The applicant must “present specific, detailed facts 

showing a good reason to fear that he . . . will be singled out for persecution,” id. at 

1287 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and he must demonstrate that 

he cannot avoid persecution by relocating to another part of his home country, if 

such relocation would be reasonable, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). 

“The risk of persecution alone does not create a particular social group 

within the meaning of the INA.” Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 

1198 (11th Cir. 2006). And “[a]n asylum applicant’s membership in a familybased particular social group does not necessarily mean that any harm inflicted or 

threatened by the persecutor is because of, or on account of, the family 

membership.” Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43 (BIA 2017), aff’d in part 

and rev’d in part, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2019). 

Additionally, threats or harm to an applicant’s family member(s) do not constitute 

evidence of persecution against the applicant “where there has been no threat or 

harm directed against” him, specifically. Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 

1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). Likewise, evidence of private violence or that a 

person would be a victim of criminal activity “does not constitute evidence of 

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 4 of 7 
5

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.” Id. at 1310 (quoting 

Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1258). “[T]he INA does not extend eligibility for asylum to 

anyone who fears the general danger that inevitably accompanies political ferment 

and factional strife.” Mazariegos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th 

Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding that ArguetaMartinez did not qualify for asylum. Although members of his family have 

suffered serious harm at the hands of MS-13—allegedly stemming from his sister’s 

tragic murder by gang members—the evidence does not show that his family has 

been singled out for persecution as a result of this event. Attacks perpetrated on 

Argueta-Martinez’s son and daughter—the crux of his evidence that he will 

likewise be persecuted by MS-13 were he to return to El Salvador—were typical of 

MS-13’s general acts of violence toward the community at large. These incidents 

also occurred years after his sister’s murder, which attenuates their alleged 

connection. He has never been personally harmed by MS-13, and numerous 

members of his family have continued to live in El Salvador without issue. The 

BIA’s finding that Argueta-Martinez does not qualify for asylum is, therefore, 

supported by the record, as he has not proven that he would reasonably be subject 

to persecution in El Salvador as a result of his familial affiliation.

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 5 of 7 
6

B

To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant must 

show that, if returned to his country, his “life or freedom would be threatened in 

that country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). He must also

demonstrate that he “would more likely than not be threatened or persecuted” if 

returned to his country of removal. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 

819 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If an 

applicant is unable to meet the standard of proof for asylum, he cannot meet the 

more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Id. Because we’ve held that 

Argueta-Martinez is ineligible for asylum, he is likewise ineligible for withholding 

of removal.

C

An applicant seeking protection under CAT must “establish that it is more 

likely than not that he . . . 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) 

(quotation omitted). He must further show that the torture would be caused or 

acquiesced to by the government. Id. at 1241. Argueta-Martinez has not shown 

that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to El Salvador, 

as he has never been directly threatened by MS-13, and many members of his 

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 6 of 7 
7

family continue to live in El Salvador without issue. Additionally, Salvadoran 

police officers investigated the violence perpetrated against his family, and—as the 

BIA noted—“generalized evidence of official corruption in the Salvadoran law 

enforcement community [does not] suffice to prove that a Salvadoran public 

official would more likely than not consent to, or acquiesce in, [ArguetaMartinez’s] future torture by criminals.” Accordingly, we deny his petition as to 

this issue.

II

“We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review 

unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect” to it. 

Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Thus, we lack jurisdiction to hear any argument that was not raised before the BIA. 

Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We therefore cannot consider Argueta-Martinez’s 

argument that he is entitled to humanitarian asylum, because he did not 

administratively exhaust this claim before the BIA. Accordingly, we deny 

Argueta-Martinez’s petition as to this issue, as well. 

PETITION DENIED. 

Case: 18-14973 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 7 of 7