Court Opinion

ID: 9939736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 17:00:57.74658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:52.287586
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11370   Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11370
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KEYDI MARIELA RODRIGUEZ MEIJA,
       BRIANNY MILAGROS AYALA RODRIGUEZ,
       JOSHUA AYALA-RODRIGUES,
                                                               Petitioners,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
USCA11 Case: 23-11370         Document: 22-1         Date Filed: 02/12/2024         Page: 2 of 5

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       23-11370

                               Agency No. A209-303-319
                               ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Keydi Mariela Rodriguez Mejia 1 and her two minor children
       petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order af-
       firming the immigration judge’s denial of Rodriguez Mejia’s claims
       for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United
       Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
       or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On appeal, Rodriguez
       Mejia argues that the BIA erred in concluding (1) that her testi-
       mony lacked credibility and (2) that her immediate family did not
       constitute a sufficiently particular social group. After careful con-
       sideration of the parties’ arguments, we deny the petition. 2
                                              I
               As an initial matter, “[w]e review the BIA’s decision as the
       final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision.”

       1 Rodriguez Mejia’s second surname is spelled “Meija” on our docket but

       “Mejia” in the briefs. This opinion uses the spelling from the briefs. Further-
       more, because Rodriguez Mejia is the lead petitioner and the other petitioners
       (her minor children) are derivative beneficiaries on her asylum claim, we focus
       our discussion on Rodriguez Mejia’s claims and arguments.
       2 We review de novo questions of law and our subject matter jurisdiction.

       Ponce Flores v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 64 F.4th 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2023). We review
       factual findings under the substantial-evidence test. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019).
USCA11 Case: 23-11370      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11370               Opinion of the Court                          3

       Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Issues
       not reached by the BIA are not properly before us. Id. The BIA did
       not consider whether Rodriguez Mejia’s testimony was credible—
       rather, it assumed she was credible for purposes of her appeal and
       dismissed the appeal on other grounds. Therefore, we will not con-
       sider Rodriguez Mejia’s argument regarding her credibility as it is
       not properly before us.
                                         II
              To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must meet the Immi-
       gration and Nationality Act’s definition of a refugee. INA
       § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as a
       person outside the country of her nationality who is unable or un-
       willing to return to that country because of persecution, or a well-
       founded fear of persecution, on account of a protected ground,
       such as membership in a “particular social group.” INA
       § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The “on account of” el-
       ement—known as the nexus requirement—requires that the pro-
       tected ground was or will be “at least one central reason” for the
       persecution. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1158
       (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C.
       § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Additionally, an asserted social group must be
       cognizable, meaning that it qualifies as a “particular social group”
       under the INA by being—among other things—defined with par-
       ticularity, based on an immutable shared characteristic, defined in-
       dependently of the risk of harm, and socially distinct. See Gonzalez,
       820 F.3d at 404.
USCA11 Case: 23-11370      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11370

             To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant must
       show past persecution, or a clear probability of future persecution,
       on account of a protected ground. Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       969 F.3d 1278, 1286 & n.10 (11th Cir. 2020); Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479
       F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007). The protected grounds and the
       nexus requirement for withholding of removal are the same as for
       asylum. Perez-Sanchez, 935 F.3d at 1158.
               A noncitizen who fails to argue an issue in her brief on ap-
       peal, or “makes only a passing reference” to it, abandons it. Ruga
       v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 757 F.3d 1193, 1196 (11th Cir. 2014); Kazemzadeh
       v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). To preserve
       an argument, a party “must specifically and clearly identify a claim
       in its brief, for instance by devoting a discrete section of [her] argu-
       ment to that claim.” Zhu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303, 1316 n.3
       (11th Cir. 2013) (alterations adopted and quotation marks omitted).
       A simple statement “that an issue exists, without further argument
       or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes
       our considering the issue on appeal.” Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561
       F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). As a general rule, “courts and
       agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
       which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” Farah v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 12 F.4th 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2021); see Chewy, Inc. v. U.S.
       Dep’t of Labor, 69 F.4th 773, 776 (11th Cir. 2023) (addressing only
       one of petitioner’s challenges to agency decision because it was dis-
       positive of petition).
USCA11 Case: 23-11370      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 02/12/2024     Page: 5 of 5

       23-11370               Opinion of the Court                         5

              Here, Rodriguez Mejia abandoned any challenge to the
       BIA’s dispositive finding that the Honduran gang’s threats and vio-
       lence were not primarily motivated by her familial relationship
       with her husband. In her brief, Rodriguez Mejia refers in passing
       to the gang’s motivation in extorting her family, asserting briefly
       that her family was targeted because they constituted an immedi-
       ate family. Such a passing reference, which fails to develop any
       meaningful argument regarding the nexus issue, or even
       acknowledge the BIA’s contrary nexus finding, constitutes aban-
       donment and precludes our consideration of the nexus issue on ap-
       peal. See Ruga, 757 F.3d at 1196; Singh, 561 F.3d at 1278.
               Although Rodriguez Mejia’s challenge to the BIA’s cogniza-
       bility conclusion regarding her social group is properly developed,
       there is no need for us to reach it because her abandonment of a
       challenge to the BIA’s nexus finding is dispositive of her eligibility
       for asylum or withholding of removal. See Chewy, Inc., 69 F.4th at
       776; Farah, 12 F.4th at 1326.
              PETITION DENIED.