Opinion ID: 4565697
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Child-Specific Considerations

Text: First, Rodriguez-Contreras claims that her due process rights were violated because the IJ did not use “child-specific considerations” when deciding her asylum application. In support of her argument, Rodriguez-Contreras cites to cases and asylum guidelines for the proposition that a child’s asylum application must be analyzed differently than an adult’s asylum application. See, e.g., Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 555, 569–70 (7th Cir. 2008) (suggesting that age may bear heavily on an applicant’s claims of past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution). She also relies on cases suggesting that the agency must consider evidence in a child’s asylum proceeding using a “child-sensitive approach” outlined in guidelines by DHS and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. See Mejilla-Romero v. Holder, 614 F.3d 572, 572–73 (1st Cir. 2010). As such, she asserts that, because child-specific considerations “must be applied to all elements of the child’s asylum claim,” the IJ erred by failing to evaluate her claims from a child’s perspective. Specifically, she argues that the IJ should have considered her age in determining whether her experiences constitute persecution and that her youth 11 Case: 19-13860 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 12 of 24 required the IJ to better consider the documentary evidence on conditions in El Salvador, as children may be unable to understand and explain country conditions or comprehend their danger and vulnerability. Based on our review of the record and the agency’s decisions, however, we find no indication that the IJ or BIA ignored Rodriguez-Contreras’s age in considering her asylum application. Indeed, the IJ took note of RodriguezContreras’s age during all of the events in question and considered her testimony regarding the phone calls, the fear she felt in El Salvador during that time period, and her current fear of returning to her neighborhood in El Salvador. The IJ also specifically noted that she was credible. The IJ’s decision turned on whether Rodriguez-Contreras suffered extreme, continued harassment while in El Salvador and whether she had an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution if she returns. Even if the IJ had found that Rodriguez-Contreras felt even more fear, suffered more trauma, and was in greater danger than she was able to articulate, this would not change the denial of her asylum application. As discussed below, the IJ and BIA correctly found that Rodriguez-Contreras failed to establish that the persecution she fears is on account of a political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Thus, we reject her due process argument because she has failed to show that the result of her removal proceedings would have been different had the IJ found that she had been subject to, or reasonably feared, 12 Case: 19-13860 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 13 of 24 persecution based on her child-specific perspective. Cf. Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1143– 44. 2. Reasoned Consideration of Documentary Evidence Second, Rodriguez-Contreras argues that the IJ selectively considered evidence and ignored the documentary evidence she provided that showed gangs are considered the de facto authority in many areas within El Salvador. According to Rodriguez-Contreras, the IJ only considered a State Department report and should have instead relied on the various articles and other reports she submitted. She claims that, considering the record as a whole, the IJ should have made findings on whether gangs are the de facto government in the areas where she lived and went to school. “When assessing whether a decision displays reasoned consideration, we look only to ensure that the IJ and the BIA considered the issues raised and announced their decisions in terms sufficient to enable review.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1302 (11th Cir. 2015). The IJ and BIA must consider all evidence submitted, but they need not specifically address each claim or piece of evidence. Id. Therefore, “a decision that omits the discussion of certain pieces of evidence can nonetheless display reasoned consideration.” Id. “We have sustained reasonedconsideration claims in three types of circumstances: when the Board ‘misstates the contents of the record, fails to adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions, 13 Case: 19-13860 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 14 of 24 or provides justifications for its decision which are unreasonable and which do not respond to any arguments in the record.’” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 803 (11th Cir. 2016)). These circumstances share a common trait, i.e., that the BIA’s opinion, when “read alongside the evidentiary record, forces us to doubt whether we and the [BIA] are, in substance, looking at the same case.” Id. Here, the IJ rejected Rodriguez-Contreras’s position that gangs in El Salvador constitute the de facto government and relied on a report from the State Department. While the IJ noted in his decision that he “carefully considered” the documentary evidence submitted by Rodriguez-Contreras, she suggests this is untrue because the IJ cited only to the State Department report in his decision. Rodriguez-Contreras concedes that the IJ and BIA were justified in relying heavily on the report from the State Department but argues that the State Department report “stands in stark contrast to” her other documentary evidence. She believes the latter category of documentary evidence should control. However, our review in this scenario is limited to ensuring that the IJ and the BIA considered the arguments and evidence presented and rendered a reasoned consideration. See Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1302. We conclude that the IJ’s decision reflects reasoned consideration. Here, the IJ made specific findings on the issue and noted what he reviewed in making his decision. Additionally, the transcript of the 14 Case: 19-13860 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 15 of 24 Merits Hearing shows that the IJ asked Rodriguez-Contreras’s counsel to direct him to specific pages of the other documentary evidence she presented. Indeed, the IJ’s order specifically addressed one of the articles alleged by Rodriguez-Contreras to have been ignored and then disagreed with its conclusion. We cannot, therefore, conclude that the IJ ignored evidence simply because Rodriguez-Contreras claims her other documentary evidence is more accurate than the State Department report. Accordingly, we reject this argument.