[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10171

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A202-128-496

JUAN DE DIOS VASQUEZ-BARDALES, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 28, 2020)

Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-10171 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Juan de Dios Vasquez-Bardales (“Vasquez”), a native and citizen of 

Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order 

affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and

withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and 

relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). Vasquez argues that the 

IJ and BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his asylum application by not

adequately analyzing whether the harm that he suffered rose to the level of 

persecution, whether his proffered particular social groups were cognizable, and 

whether he demonstrated a nexus between the harm and a protected ground under 

the INA.

1

 

We review only the BIA’s decision, unless it expressly adopted the IJ’s 

opinion or agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s findings 

and adds its own observations, we will review both decisions. Id. Where the BIA 

does not adopt the IJ’s decision, “we do not review that portion of the IJ’s decision.” 

1 Vasquez also states in the introductory and summary sections of his brief that he is 

eligible for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). However, he has 

abandoned that argument by failing to prominently raise it in his brief. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 

739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (providing that, to adequately raise an issue, a litigant must 

do so “plainly and prominently” by, for example, “devoting a discrete section of his argument to 

those claims”). He likewise has abandoned any challenge to the denial of CAT relief by failing 

to raise that issue in his brief.

USCA11 Case: 20-10171 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

Shkambi v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n.5 (11th Cir. 2009). We will not 

consider an issue that was not reached by the BIA. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 

Before we may review a claim raised in a petition for review, the petitioner 

must have first exhausted all administrative remedies for that claim. INA 

§ 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 

492 (11th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over issues that the 

petitioner has not exhausted, even if the BIA addresses the issue sua sponte. 

Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006). In 

order for a petitioner’s claim to be exhausted, the petitioner must have raised the 

“core issue now on appeal” before the BIA. Indrawati v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 779 F.3d 

1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). He also must “set out any 

discrete arguments he relies on in support of that claim” and “provide information 

sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Jeune v. U.S. 

Atty. Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800-01 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).

Although Vasquez frames his arguments in terms of “reasoned 

consideration,” he is effectively challenging the IJ’s determination that his proffered 

social groups lacked cognizability and that he failed to demonstrate a nexus to a 

protected ground. However, because Vasquez did not challenge those findings

before the BIA, those claims are unexhausted, and we do not have jurisdiction to 

USCA11 Case: 20-10171 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

review them. Further, although Vasquez exhausted the issue of whether he presented 

sufficient evidence to support a claim of past persecution, the BIA neither made its 

own observations nor affirmed the IJ’s finding that the harm that he suffered had not 

risen to the level of persecution. Thus, because the BIA’s final decision made no 

determination as to whether Vasquez had experienced past persecution, it is beyond 

our scope of review. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition for review.

PETITION DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10171 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 Page: 4 of 4