Court Opinion

ID: 9958203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 15:02:03.074565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:02.882663
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12141    Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024    Page: 1 of 17

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-12141
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JAMOLIDDIN BOTUROVICH MUKHTOROV,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                               Respondent.

                           ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A213-482-559
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 2 of 17

        2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12141

        Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Jamoliddin Mukhtorov petitions for review of the Board of
        Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration
        judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
        removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
        Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
        Punishment (“CAT”). After careful review, we deny his petition.
                                         I.
                Mukhtorov, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, entered the
        United States without a valid entry document. The Department of
        Homeland Security served him with a notice to appear, charging
        him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act
        (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), for lacking such a document.
        Mukhtorov retained counsel and applied for asylum, withholding
        of removal, and CAT relief. In his application he asserted that he
        faced persecution and feared future persecution if he returned to
        Uzbekistan based on his religion, Islam. In support of his applica-
        tion, he provided United States Department of State reports, news
        articles, and personal statements from himself, his mother, and his
        sister. He also testified at a hearing before the IJ. We recount the
        evidence in support of his application below.
               Mukhtorov included with his application the Department of
        State’s Uzbekistan 2019 Human Rights Report, which indicated
        that Uzbekistan imposed “restrictions on religious freedom.” AR at
USCA11 Case: 23-12141         Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 04/08/2024   Page: 3 of 17

        23-12141                  Opinion of the Court                           3

        241. 1 He also provided the Department of State’s 2019 Interna-
        tional Religious Freedom Report, which noted that although 88
        percent of Uzbekistan’s population was Muslim and its constitution
        provided for religious freedom and separation of government and
        religion, “some nongovernmental organization . . . representatives
        said the government continued torture of persons arrested and
        jailed on suspicion of religious extremism or of participating in un-
        derground Islamic activity.” Id. at 173.
               The report explained that Uzbekistan closely regulated reli-
        gious practices and criminalized unregistered religious activity.
        The requirements for registration were burdensome. Many reli-
        gious groups that were unable to meet the requirements were
        “subject to harassment by local authorities and criminal sanction
        for engaging in ‘illegal’ religious activities.” Id. at 184. Some Mus-
        lims, the report noted, had recounted that Uzbekistan’s strict regu-
        lation of religious practices and denial of registration for many
        groups resulted in the criminalization of “meetings of persons gath-
        ered to discuss their faith or to exchange religious ideas.” Id. at 183.
               The report stated that Uzbekistan law prohibited “all indi-
        viduals, except clergy and individuals serving in leadership posi-
        tions of officially recognized religious practices, from wearing reli-
        gious attire in public places.” Id. at 179. The law, however, was
        “not generally enforce[d],” except in public and private schools. Id.
        The government also banned some individuals from growing

        1 “AR” refers to the administrative record.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 4 of 17

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12141

        beards and allegedly had forced Muslim men to shave their beards.
        And, according to the report, police had “detained two bloggers
        who called for the government to allow girls to wear hijabs, men
        to grow beards, and children to attend mosques, although report-
        edly other bloggers who criticized the government faced no back-
        lash.” Id. at 173.
                Mukhtorov also submitted to the IJ news articles that de-
        tailed how Uzbekistan limited the wearing of religious attire in
        public. He attached to his application an article about Uzbekistan’s
        complicated relationship with headscarves. Since 2018, the govern-
        ment has banned girls from wearing headscarves at school. But “if
        a girl wears a headscarf, she is thought to have more chances to get
        married successfully.” Id. at 197. He also attached an article about
        an “anti-beard campaign” in Uzbekistan in which authorities were
        forcing men to shave their beards. Id. at 202–03. Finally, he at-
        tached an article detailing the arrest of four bloggers who had writ-
        ten critically about the banning of hijabs at schools, the authorities’
        mistreatment of Muslims, and the forced shaving of men’s beards.
               The record before the IJ also included statements from
        Mukhtorov that he, his mother, and his sister had faced oppression
        for their religious practices. He stated that in October 2018, his sis-
        ter was reported to the local authorities for refusing to remove her
        hijab at school. That same day, a local chairman and police officers
        came to the family’s home “and spoke rudely to [Mukhtorov’s]
        mother and sister.” Id. at 212. Mukhtorov told the officers “not to
        speak disrespectfully,” and the officers “inflicted bodily injuries” on
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 5 of 17

        23-12141               Opinion of the Court                          5

        him, injuring his head, body, and legs. Id. The police also forced
        him, his mother, and his sister “to write that we are not going to
        be that religious,” that the women would not wear hijabs, and that
        they would “not follow Islamic traditions.” Id. at 118.
                Later in the day, Mukhtorov was in pain in his head and
        lower back. He fainted, so his mother and a neighbor drove him to
        the hospital. In the intensive care unit, he “lay unconscious in a
        coma for a day,” and, when he regained consciousness, was blind
        and terrified. Id. at 213. Mukhtorov stated that the “severe head
        injury” caused his “memory [to] deteriorate[] a lot.” Id. at 214. He
        also stated that he “was bedridden for a long time because the doc-
        tors did surgery on [his] lumbar spine,” an injury that “still causes .
        . . severe back pain.” Id. at 213. But Mukhtorov did not state that
        the surgery and subsequent back pain were tied to the assault.
        Mukhtorov explained that he did not complain about the assault to
        the authorities because doing so could result in “more severe pres-
        sure and torture.” Id.
               Mukhtorov further stated he, his mother, and his sister were
        harassed “every week, every month, every day for years.” Id. He
        once was stopped at a market by a government official who
        checked his telephone: when the official saw a photo of Mukhto-
        rov’s mother wearing a hijab, the official “started inquiring . . .
        about it.” Id. at 124. When he was in school and in college, Mukhto-
        rov recalled, “almost every week these people used to come . . .
        and ask [him] not to go . . . to the mosque, not to be religious.” Id.
        He recalled that about a year after the assault, the family sought
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 6 of 17

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12141

        passports. During that process, police officers demanded that his
        mother and sister remove their hijabs, and threatened the family
        “by showing [them] videos and photographs . . . that depicted
        scenes of repression and torture in prisons, . . . continuously
        threaten[ing the family] that the [officers] could put [the family] in
        the same situation” if they continued to “be that religious.” Id. at
        123, 217.
               Mukhtorov testified that he feared that if he returned to Uz-
        bekistan, “they will catch me in the airport and they will send me
        to prison” for practicing Islam. Id. at 128. He stated that he did not
        know if he could safely relocate within Uzbekistan, stating, “maybe
        I could.” Id. at 129. He acknowledged that his mother had left Uz-
        bekistan and returned without major incident.
                Mukhtorov’s mother, Sharifa Tursunova, and sister, Uma-
        robonu Mukhtorova, described the restraints they experienced in
        practicing Islam as well as the assault Mukhtorov experienced. Tur-
        sunova stated that practicing Islam was “impossible” in Uzbekistan.
        Id. at 145. Local police accused her of “secretly teaching the hijab-
        wearing and Islamic teachings” to assistants in her dressmaking
        shop and surveilled the apartment where she lived. Id. at 146. She
        stated that she “was humiliated” when she left the house in a hijab,
        was told to remove it when she went to her children’s school, and
        once was detained for three days “under duress and interrogation”
        for wearing a hijab. Id. Mukhtorova was kicked out of school for
        wearing a hijab.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141          Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 04/08/2024   Page: 7 of 17

        23-12141                   Opinion of the Court                           7

                Tursunova and Mukhtorova described the assault on
        Mukhtorov. Tursunova stated that police visited her house after
        her daughter was kicked out of school. The police raised their
        voices and made disrespectful remarks about hijab-wearing to her
        and her daughter, so Mukhtorov asked the police not to speak
        rudely. The police accused Mukhtorov of being “against the law
        and politics” and then “grabbed his hair, bent his neck, and struck
        him hard in his head with a black stick.” Id. at 148. “The conflict
        lasted for a long time,” with all three of the family members being
        “abused.” Id. A police officer told Mukhtorov, “I will use every pos-
        sible law to detain you for violating the laws and politics of Uzbek-
        istan.” Id. After the attack, Mukhtorov began feeling unwell, vom-
        ited, and “began fainting from severe pain in his head.” Id. A neigh-
        bor helped Mukhtorov get to the hospital, where he was in “critical
        condition” in the “intensive care unit in a coma.” Id. He was in a
        coma for a day, and when he awoke, he said he could not see. Tur-
        sunova stated that she checked him out of the hospital because of
        the poor conditions of the facility. Mukhtorov lost his vision for
        about five days and had blurred vision thereafter. Tursunova had
        to treat him “for many months.” Id. Mukhtorov’s health remained
        poor “for a long time.” Id. Tursunova mentioned that Mukhtorov
        “was bedridden for many months due to his spinal cord surgery,”
        although she did not link the surgery to the assault and Mukhto-
        rova did not mention it. 2 Id.

        2 Tursunova and Mukhtorova also were in immigration proceedings, but they

        are not parties to this petition for review.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 8 of 17

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12141

                After the hearing, the IJ denied Mukhtorov’s application.
        The IJ found Mukhtorov to be “generally credible regarding his re-
        ligion and his family in Uzbekistan,” but explained that “his testi-
        mony was vague and unpersuasive, specifically when it came to his
        testimony regarding his fear of return to Uzbekistan and his free-
        dom to practice his religion” as compared to the Department of
        State reports he submitted. Id. at 43–44. The IJ stated that the mis-
        treatment Mukhtorov experienced did not individually or cumula-
        tively rise to the level of past persecution. Mukhtorov “received
        physical harm one time,” and provided only “vague testimony as
        to the results or the outcome of the treatment he received.” Id. at
        46. The IJ further found that Mukhtorov’s fear of returning to Uz-
        bekistan was not objectively reasonable and therefore not well-
        founded. The IJ explained that Mukhtorov’s testimony was incon-
        sistent with the fact that Uzbekistan is overwhelmingly Muslim,
        and that “[t]here is no evidence . . . that shows Muslims are mis-
        treated, targeted or persecuted simply because they are Muslims.”
        Id. at 47. Additionally, Mukhtorov’s testimony that he feared re-
        turning to Uzbekistan was undercut by the fact that his mother had
        left the country and then returned without being arrested. For
        these reasons, the IJ rejected Mukhtorov’s claim for asylum.
                The IJ concluded that because Mukhtorov could not demon-
        strate eligibility for asylum, he could not satisfy the stricter with-
        holding-of-removal standard. And the IJ found that Mukhtorov had
        presented no credible evidence suggesting that he would more
        likely than not be subjected to torture upon return to Uzbekistan.
        Thus, the IJ denied CAT relief.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 9 of 17

        23-12141                Opinion of the Court                          9

                Mukhtorov timely appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed
        his appeal. It “assume[d] that [Mukhtorov] was credible” but none-
        theless “agree[d]” with the IJ that he had not demonstrated eligibil-
        ity for asylum or withholding of removal. Id. at 3. Specifically, the
        BIA “discern[ed] no legal error or clear factual error” in the IJ’s con-
        clusion that Mukhtorov had failed to show past persecution, a well-
        founded fear of future persecution, or that it was more likely than
        not that he would be persecuted. Id. Mukhtorov’s testimony re-
        garding the assault he experienced, as well as the results or out-
        come of his treatment, “was vague.” Id. at 4. As to fear of future
        persecution, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Mukhtorov’s country
        conditions evidence “d[id] not reflect the targeting, mistreatment,
        or persecution of persons simply because they are Muslim.” Id.
                The BIA also concluded that Mukhtorov was not entitled to
        CAT relief “because he has not demonstrated that he is more likely
        than not to be tortured in Uzbekistan, by or with the acquiescence
        (including willful blindness) of a government official upon return.”
        Id. Mukhtorov had complained that the IJ had failed to give his
        CAT claim “separate and thorough consideration” and had failed
        to state any grounds for denying his claim, id. at 26, but the BIA
        disagreed. The BIA explained that the IJ had “considered [Mukhto-
        rov’s] testimony and written evidence, and he concluded that the .
        . . torture claim was speculative.” Id. at 4. Further, the BIA rea-
        soned, Mukhtorov had “not pointed to any specific evidence sup-
        porting his individualized claim of fear of torture, or specific evi-
        dence that the [IJ] may have overlooked.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/08/2024    Page: 10 of 17

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  23-12141

               Mukhtorov has petitioned this Court for review.
                                          II.
               We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent
        that the BIA expressly adopted or explicitly agreed with the IJ’s
        opinion. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir.
        2010). We review the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA has
        found that the IJ’s reasons were supported by the record and re-
        view the BIA’s decision as to those matters on which it rendered its
        own opinion and reasoning. Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356,
        1364 (11th Cir. 2011).
               We review legal conclusions de novo and factual ﬁndings for
        substantial evidence. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301,
        1306 (11th Cir. 2019). A claim that the agency failed to give rea-
        soned consideration to a petitioner’s claim for relief presents a
        question of law that we review de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
        810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016).
                Under the deferential substantial-evidence test, we must af-
        firm the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial,
        and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ade-
        femi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (in-
        ternal quotation marks omitted). We view the “evidence in the
        light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasona-
        ble inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. We will reverse an
        agency’s factual finding “only if the evidence compels a reasonable
        fact finder to find otherwise.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228,
        1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
USCA11 Case: 23-12141        Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 04/08/2024       Page: 11 of 17

        23-12141                  Opinion of the Court                               11

        mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not
        enough to justify a reversal of the agency’s findings. Adefemi,
        386 F.3d at 1027. “That is, even if the evidence could support mul-
        tiple conclusions, we must affirm the agency’s decision unless there
        is no reasonable basis for that decision.” Id. at 1029.
                                              III.
               In his petition for review, Mukhtorov argues that there is
        not substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision. He argues
        that being beaten and hospitalized with injuries, as well as being
        forced to stop practicing his religion, “clearly rises to the level of
        persecution.” Petitioner’s Br. 11. For the same reason, he argues
        that he has established a well-founded fear of future persecution.
        Thus, he asserts, he is eligible for asylum and withholding of re-
        moval.3 Mukhtorov also argues that the IJ gave inadequate consid-
        eration to his claim for CAT relief and that the BIA “failed to give
        any further consideration” to it. Id. at 13. For the following reasons,
        we reject Mukhtorov’s arguments.

        3 Mukhtorov insists that his testimony “must be taken as fact” because the IJ

        found him to be credible. Petitioner’s Br. 10. The BIA, however, merely “as-
        sume[d]” him to be credible. AR at 3. And because the BIA did not adopt the
        credibility determination of the IJ, we review only the BIA’s credibility analy-
        sis. Ayala, 605 F.3d at 947–48. For the reasons set forth above, assuming as the
        BIA did that Mukhtorov credibly testified, the BIA’s conclusion that he is inel-
        igible for relief is still supported by substantial evidence.
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 12 of 17

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12141

        A. Asylum and Withholding of Removal
               Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s rejection of
        Mukhtorov’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.
        An applicant for asylum must meet the INA’s definition of a refu-
        gee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as:
               any person who is outside any country of such per-
               son’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to
               return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself
               or herself of the protection of, that country because
               of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
               on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
               in a particular social group, or political opinion.

        Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To meet the definition of a refugee, the appli-
        cant must, “with specific and credible evidence, demonstrate
        (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a
        well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future
        persecution.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir.
        2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
                Past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a
        well-founded fear of future persecution. De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y
        Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2008). Even without a showing
        of past persecution, an asylum applicant may show a well-founded
        fear of future persecution by showing a fear of future persecution
        that is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Id. The ob-
        jective component requires that the applicant show a reasonable
        possibility of suffering persecution, either by being singled out for
USCA11 Case: 23-12141     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 13 of 17

        23-12141               Opinion of the Court                        13

        persecution or being identified with a persecuted group. Li Shan
        Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 672 F.3d 961, 965 (11th Cir. 2011).
                Like the showing required for asylum, an applicant seeking
        withholding of removal must demonstrate that his “life or freedom
        would be threatened in that country because of [his] race, religion,
        nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
        opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). As with asylum, if an applicant
        establishes past persecution, a rebuttable presumption arises that
        his “life or freedom” would again be threatened upon re-
        moval. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). Otherwise, the applicant must demon-
        strate that he would more likely than not be persecuted if returned
        to the country of removal. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d
        814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004). Withholding of removal claims are gov-
        erned by a “more stringent” standard than asylum claims. Sepulveda
        v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1233 (11th Cir. 2005). If an appli-
        cant cannot meet the well-founded fear standard of asylum, he gen-
        erally will not be eligible for withholding of removal. Kazemzadeh
        v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009).
                Persecution is an “extreme concept” that requires more than
        mere harassment, “a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or
        intimidation,” or “[m]inor physical abuse and brief detentions.” Id.
        at 1353 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although physical in-
        jury is not required to prove past persecution where the petitioner
        demonstrates repeated threats combined with other forms of seri-
        ous mistreatment, De Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1009, a minor beat-
        ing, even when viewed in conjunction with threats, does not
USCA11 Case: 23-12141     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024    Page: 14 of 17

        14                     Opinion of the Court                23-12141

        constitute persecution. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168,
        1174 (11th Cir. 2008).
                Here, the record does not compel a finding that Mukhtorov
        suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future per-
        secution. Mukhtorov was beaten on one occasion and suffered in-
        juries. He and his mother and sister also were harassed, and he was
        threatened with incarceration if he continued to practice his reli-
        gion. Although we sympathize with Mukhtorov about these inci-
        dents, we cannot say that the evidence compels a conclusion that
        he has shown the kind of extreme harm necessary to constitute past
        persecution. See id. at 1171, 1174 (concluding that substantial evi-
        dence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner had not
        shown past persecution when the petitioner was detained at a po-
        lice station for 36 hours; forced to disrobe, beaten with a belt, and
        kicked; suffered multiple scratches to his neck and knees and mul-
        tiple muscle bruises; was told that he “was going to rot in jail” if
        arrested again; and received medical treatment requiring
        two weeks of rest and several prescription medications (internal
        quotation marks omitted)); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d
        1283, 1288, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that the record did
        not compel a finding that the petitioner was persecuted where he
        was beaten unconscious by governmental agents; sustained a lac-
        eration from the beating that his mother treated; was detained on
        multiple occasions; was interrogated for 20 hours while threatened
        with imprisonment, torture, or forced disappearance during one of
        the detentions; was fired from three jobs; and was forced to give
        up his phone and laptop to the government).
USCA11 Case: 23-12141     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 15 of 17

        23-12141               Opinion of the Court                        15

                Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that
        Mukhtorov did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future per-
        secution because his fear was not objectively reasonable. Without
        a showing of past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption
        that his fear of future persecution is well-founded. See De Santama-
        ria, 525 F.3d at 1007. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Mukhtorov’s
        country conditions evidence “does not reflect the targeting, mis-
        treatment, or persecution of persons simply because they are Mus-
        lim” such that his fear of returning to the country was objectively
        reasonable. AR at 4. The record does not compel us to conclude
        otherwise. Indeed, Mukhtorov acknowledged that he may be able
        to relocate within the country and that his mother had departed
        and later returned to Uzbekistan without major incident. Both
        acknowledgements support the BIA’s conclusion that Mukhtorov’s
        fear of persecution upon his return to Uzbekistan was not objec-
        tively reasonable.
               Given the totality of the evidence in the record, we cannot
        disturb the BIA’s conclusion that Mukhtorov failed to qualify for
        asylum. And, because he cannot meet the less stringent standard
        for asylum eligibility, he likewise cannot demonstrate his eligibility
        for withholding of removal. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352.
        B. CAT Relief
              Mukhtorov also cannot establish that the BIA erred in its
        consideration of his claim for CAT relief.
              An applicant seeking CAT relief must establish “that it is
        more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed
USCA11 Case: 23-12141      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 16 of 17

        16                     Opinion of the Court                  23-12141

        to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). All
        relevant evidence must be considered, including his ability to relo-
        cate and human rights violations within the coun-
        try. Id. § 1208.16(c)(3). Although applications for CAT relief are re-
        viewed under a different standard than asylum or withholding of
        removal, the BIA “need not address specifically each claim the pe-
        titioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented,”
        so long as it gives reasoned consideration to the petition and evi-
        dence as a whole. Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332
        (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Malu v. U.S.
        Att’y. Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1292–93 (11th Cir. 2014) (rejecting a pe-
        titioner’s challenge that the BIA failed to give reasoned considera-
        tion to his CAT claim, explaining that the petitioner “fail[ed] to ap-
        preciate that, before deciding whether she was entitled to protec-
        tion under [CAT], the Board exhaustively discussed her application
        for withholding of removal based upon the same set of facts”), ab-
        rogated in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.
        411 (2023).
                Mukhtorov’s application for asylum and withholding of re-
        moval was based on the same set of facts as his request for CAT
        relief, and the BIA’s discussion of his CAT claim followed its de-
        tailed discussion of his application for asylum and withholding of
        removal. Under these circumstances, the BIA was not obligated to
        conduct a detailed independent analysis of the CAT claim. Carrizo,
        652 F.3d at 1332. In any event, the BIA provided enough analysis
        “to enable [our] review.” Malu, 764 F.3d at 1293. Noting that the IJ
        had concluded that Mukhtorov’s “torture claim was speculative,”
USCA11 Case: 23-12141     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024    Page: 17 of 17

        23-12141               Opinion of the Court                       17

        the BIA reasoned that Mukhtorov had “not pointed to any specific
        evidence supporting his individualized claim of fear of torture, or
        specific evidence that the [IJ] may have overlooked.” AR at 4. The
        BIA was correct in its reasoning, and in fact Mukhtorov does not
        point us to anything in the record that the IJ may have overlooked.
        We therefore reject his challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his claim
        for CAT relief.
                                        IV.
              In sum, Mukhtorov’s petition for review is denied.
              PETITION DENIED.