[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11890

____________________

ALEYANDER FERNANDEZ-MINIET, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A203-578-731

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-11890 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 1 of 5 RESTRICTED
2 Opinion of the Court 20-11890

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Aleyander Fernandez-Miniet, a native and citizen of Cuba, 

entered the United States without being admitted or paroled and 

without being in possession of a valid entry document.

1 During his 

removal proceedings, Fernandez-Miniet applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The immigration judge (“IJ”) 

denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. 

Fernandez-Miniet petitions this Court for review. 

To enable our review, the BIA must give “reasoned consideration” to a petitioner’s claims. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 

F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether the Board gave reasoned consideration to a petition, we inquire only whether the Board considered 

the issues raised and announced its decision in terms sufficient to 

enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought

and not merely reacted.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[W]e must be left with the conviction, based on the record before 

us, that the Board has considered and reasoned through the most 

1 Because we write only for the parties, we assume their familiarity with the 

factual and procedural background of this case and discuss only what is necessary to explain our decision.

USCA11 Case: 20-11890 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 2 of 5 RESTRICTED
20-11890 Opinion of the Court 3

relevant evidence of the case.” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327,

1331 (11th Cir. 2019).

Here, the IJ2 failed to give reasoned consideration to Fernandez-Miniet’s asylum and withholding-of-removal claims insofar as 

those claims were based on a theory of past persecution. The whole 

of the IJ’s past persecution analysis consisted of the following sentence: “[t]here is no evidence that [Fernandez-Miniet] suffered injuries that required extensive or prolonged medical treatment or 

that he was seriously injured or that he suffered broken bones or 

that he experienced long-term injuries or health complications.” 

AR at 8.

3 Based on nothing other than the extent of the physical 

harm Fernandez-Miniet suffered at the hands of Cuban police, the 

IJ found that Fernandez-Miniet’s treatment in Cuba did not rise to 

the level of past persecution. 

Although the extent of physical harm suffered is relevant to

the past persecution analysis, it is not the be-all and end-all. For example, “[a] credible death threat by a person who has the immediate ability to act on it constitutes persecution regardless of whether 

the threat is successfully carried out.” Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 

F.3d 1329, 1333–34 (11th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that, after

Cuban police beat Fernandez-Miniet, causing his head to bleed 

2 Ordinarily, we would review only the BIA’s decision. But, here, we review 

the IJ’s decision because the BIA expressly adopted it. See Jathursan, 17 F.4th

at 1372.

3 “AR” refers to the administrative record. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11890 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 3 of 5 RESTRICTED
4 Opinion of the Court 20-11890

profusely, they detained him for three days without access to water 

and threatened to make him “disappear . . . forever.” AR at 26. After

Fernandez-Miniet left Cuba, government officials told his mother 

“repeatedly” that they intended to make Fernandez-Miniet “disappear.” Id. at 27. Although the IJ made passing reference to one of 

these disappearance threats in the background section of his written opinion, he did not discussthe threats in his substantive analysis

of past persecution. Before we can assess the merits of FernandezMiniet’s petition, we must be sure that the BIA, in adopting the IJ’s 

decision, considered the disappearance threats cumulatively with 

the other evidence of Fernandez-Miniet’s treatment in Cuba. We 

therefore grant Fernandez-Miniet’s petition in part, vacate the 

BIA’s order in part, and remand for further consideration. 

Fernandez-Miniet raises other challenges to the BIA’s decision. He argued in his brief and at oral argument that the BIA and 

the IJ failed to conduct a “pattern or practice” analysis when considering whether he had a well-founded fear of future persecution.

He also argued that the IJ violated his procedural due process rights 

by, among other things, ignoring applicable regulations and depriving him of meaningful access to the evidentiary record. FernandezMiniet did not raise these claims to the BIA, however. We therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider them.

4 See Jeune v. U.S. 

4 Fernandez-Miniet’s due process claims concern the IJ’s purported failure to 

adhere to procedural safeguards. Fernandez-Miniet provides no explanation 

why it would have been outside the BIA’s power to remedy those errors. See 

USCA11 Case: 20-11890 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 4 of 5 RESTRICTED
20-11890 Opinion of the Court 5

Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). We dismiss the petition in part with respect to Fernandez-Miniet’s pattern or practice 

and procedural due process claims. 

Fernandez-Miniet also contends that the BIA erred in denying his CAT claim. But he dedicates only a few conclusory sentences to this issue in his opening brief, failing to discuss the record 

or law in any meaningful way. As a result, he has abandoned any 

challenge related to his CAT claim. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that 

an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing 

references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.”). The petition is therefore denied in part with respect to the CAT claim.

GRANTED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN 

PART, AND REMANDED. 

Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(observing that a petitioner’s claim that he “was denied a full and fair hearing 

before a neutral factfinder . . . is precisely the kind of procedural error which 

requires exhaustion”). Thus, Fernandez-Miniet’s due process claims are not 

exempt from the exhaustion requirement. See Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2018).

USCA11 Case: 20-11890 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 5 of 5 RESTRICTED