Opinion ID: 69718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We only review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it adopts the 1 Tovar-Cortez did not appeal to the BIA the decision of the IJ denying asylum and withholding of removal because he had not been persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group. He also did not appeal to the BIA his denial of CAT relief. If a party fails to raise an issue before the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to consider that issue, even if the BIA considered the issue sua sponte. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). In order to properly raise an issue before the BIA, the party must mention the issue in his brief and discuss its merits or the basis for the IJ’s decision. See Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review whether Tovar-Cortez was persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group or the denial of CAT relief on appeal because Tovar-Cortez did not address those issues in his brief to the BIA. 4 IJ’s decision. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). To the extent that the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review the IJ’s decision also. Id. Here, the BIA issued a written opinion, in which it agreed with the reasoning of the IJ. Therefore, we review the BIA’s opinion, and the IJ’s opinion only to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning. We review the IJ’s and the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence test and will affirm if the decision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Forgue v. U.S Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation omitted). We review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the BIA’s decision. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286 (citing Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Moreover, we may not overturn the BIA’s findings of fact unless the record compels it. Id. at 1287 (citing D- Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004)).