Court Opinion

ID: 9962360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 16:00:55.415881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:28.502892
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11960   Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11960
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SAMUEL JASON ROBERTS,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A206-130-865
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11960     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11960

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Samuel Jason Roberts petitions us for review of two issues
       from his immigration court proceedings. First, he argues the Board
       of Immigration Appeals erred because it did not consider the entire
       evidentiary record when it affirmed the immigration judge’s deci-
       sion that pretermitted his application for asylum, found him ineli-
       gible for withholding of removal, and rejected his argument that
       he was protected under the Convention Against Torture. Second,
       he argues the Board erred by failing to remand his case for the im-
       migration judge to consider his motion for voluntary departure.
       We disagree. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review.
                                      I.

              Samuel Roberts is a native and citizen of Guyana. He en-
       tered the United States in 2002 on a tourist visa that authorized him
       to remain in the country for six months. In 2013, he was convicted
       in Florida for preparing or presenting a fraudulent insurance claim.
       In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security issued Roberts a
       notice to appear and charged him with removability as a noncitizen
       who remained in the United States longer than permitted.
              An immigration judge ordered Roberts removable. Roberts
       then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention
       Against Torture protection. According to Roberts, he was fearful
       of returning to Guyana because of his political views, which he
USCA11 Case: 23-11960      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 3 of 8

       23-11960               Opinion of the Court                         3

       wrote and spoke publicly about, and his membership in the “Afro-
       Guyanese” social group. He also said that he would be a target in
       Guyana because his father was the former Deputy Commissioner
       of Police in Guyana and while he was in that position a political
       activist was allegedly assassinated by the government. Roberts and
       his father testified that there were rumors that his father partici-
       pated in the assassination plot.
              Roberts testified that his family left Guyana in 2002 because
       it was an unsafe place for them and that a group of criminals sup-
       ported by the government threatened him and his family and
       forced them to leave their property. He said the threats were polit-
       ically motivated because of his father’s previous role in the govern-
       ment. He added that the threats would be intensified upon his re-
       turn because in 2015 the Guyana government began to investigate
       the assassination his father was allegedly involved in. And he also
       shared that he knew other political activists and family members
       who were killed in Guyana, and that friends and former govern-
       ment officials in Guyana told him he would not be safe if he re-
       turned to Guyana.
              The immigration judge found Roberts was removable as
       charged, pretermitted his application for asylum, determined he
       was not eligible for withholding of removal, and denied his appli-
       cation for protection under the Convention Against Torture. It pre-
       termitted his application for asylum because he did not file that ap-
       plication within one year of his last entry into the United States and
       did not demonstrate he qualified for an exception to the filing
USCA11 Case: 23-11960      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11960

       deadline. It determined he was not eligible for withholding of re-
       moval because he did not establish that he was persecuted in the
       past or that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future
       on account of a protected ground, and because the “Afro Guya-
       nese” social group was not cognizable under the statute because it
       was not shown to be socially distinct within the Guyanese society.
       And it denied Roberts’s application for protection under the Con-
       vention Against Torture because he presented no evidence of past
       torture and did not establish he was more likely than not to be tor-
       tured by or at the consent or acquiescence of a public official should
       he return to Guyana.
              Roberts filed a timely administrative appeal to the Board of
       Immigration Appeals. He challenged the immigration judge’s find-
       ings regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention
       Against Torture protection, and he requested remand to apply for
       voluntary departure to Guyana.
              The Board upheld the immigration judge’s decision and dis-
       missed Roberts’s appeal. It rejected his argument about asylum be-
       cause he presented his theory that he qualified for an exception to
       the one-year filing deadline for the first time on appeal. It also rea-
       soned that even if that argument were preserved, the commence-
       ment of the 2015 inquiry was not a material change of the condi-
       tions that prompted his departure from Guyana. It rejected his ar-
       gument about withholding of removal because the threats Roberts
       cited did not rise to the requisite severity to be considered past per-
       secution. It held that considering the evidence Roberts presented
USCA11 Case: 23-11960      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 5 of 8

       23-11960               Opinion of the Court                          5

       and his father’s testimony, he had not met his burden to establish
       that more likely than not his life or freedom would be threatened
       on account of a protected ground in the future if he were to return
       to Guyana. It also rejected Roberts’s argument that he was entitled
       to protection under the Convention Against Torture because the
       harm Roberts suffered did not constitute past torture and the im-
       migration judge was correct that Roberts could reasonably relocate
       within Guyana.
             The Board also rejected Roberts’s argument that it should
       remand the case for him to apply for voluntary departure because
       he was not given an opportunity to request voluntary departure. It
       reasoned that Roberts never requested voluntary departure before
       the proceedings in front of the immigration judge ended. Roberts
       timely petitioned for review.
                                      II.

              We review de novo whether the Board of Immigration Ap-
       peals gave “reasoned consideration” to an applicant’s claims. Ali v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2019). We affirm the
       Board’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
       probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ayala v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Additionally, “[a]
       motion to remand based on new evidence is treated as a motion to
       reopen,” and we review the Board’s denial of that motion for abuse
USCA11 Case: 23-11960     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                23-11960

       of discretion. Dos Santos v. United States Att’y Gen., 982 F.3d 1315,
       1322 (11th Cir. 2020).
                                      III.

              Roberts’s petition for review argues that the Board of Immi-
       gration Appeals failed to give “reasoned consideration” to all the
       relevant evidence related to his claims for asylum, withholding of
       removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture,
       and that the Board erred by not considering his claim for voluntary
       departure under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
               To begin, we agree with the government that Roberts does
       not challenge the immigration judge’s findings related to his ineli-
       gibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention
       Against Torture protection. Instead, Roberts’s challenges only the
       adequacy of the Board’s review of the immigration judge’s order
       and the Board’s denial of Roberts’s motion to remand to apply for
       voluntary departure. Thus, we will consider only these two issues,
       and not the immigration judge’s findings, in his petition for review.
              We agree with the government that the Board properly re-
       viewed the immigration judge’s denial of Roberts’s claims for asy-
       lum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture
       protection and gave “reasoned consideration” to Roberts’s claims.
       The Board is required to give “reasoned consideration” to an appli-
       cant’s claims and “make adequate findings.” Ali, 931 F.3d at 1333
       (internal citations omitted). To determine whether the Board gave
       a “reasoned consideration,” we look to “whether the agency has
       considered the issues raised and announced its decision in terms
USCA11 Case: 23-11960      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 7 of 8

       23-11960               Opinion of the Court                          7

       sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
       and thought and not merely reacted.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 810
       F.3d 792, 803–04 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). The
       Board “need not address specifically each claim the petitioner made
       or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented” to fulfil its obli-
       gations. Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir.
       2011) (internal citations omitted).
               The Board made adequate findings that enable us to per-
       ceive that the Board “heard and thought” about each of Roberts’s
       arguments. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803–04. For the asylum claim, the
       Board referenced Roberts’s claims about the assassination his fa-
       ther was allegedly involved in, the 2015 investigation into that as-
       sassination, and the threats Roberts received related to his property
       dispute. For the withholding of removal claim, the Board reviewed
       the immigration judge’s findings about the likelihood of future per-
       secution in Guyana and determined that the immigration judge
       properly considered Roberts’s father’s testimony that he was
       viewed as an impartial figure in the government and was trusted
       by members of the opposing party. And for his claim for protection
       under the Convention Against Torture, the Board found that Rob-
       erts’s claims were speculative and based on “stringing together a
       series of suppositions,” and specifically referenced the current con-
       ditions in Guyana. Thus, we hold that the Board gave a sufficient
       “reasoned consideration” to each of Roberts’s arguments.
             We also agree with the government that the Board properly
       denied Roberts’s motion to remand for the immigration judge to
USCA11 Case: 23-11960      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 8 of 8

       8                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11960

       consider his motion for voluntary departure. That motion to re-
       mand was filed after the immigration judge issued its opinion and
       was based on its order of removal. Thus, we review the Board’s
       denial of Roberts’s motion to remand for abuse of discretion. See
       Dos Santos, 982 F.3d at 1322. The crux of Roberts’s argument is that
       he had expected to have an opportunity to request voluntary de-
       parture and did not realize the immigration judge closed the re-
       moval proceedings at the end of his hearing. Thus, he says the im-
       migration judge should have considered his motion and the Board
       should have remanded his case to the immigration judge to do so.
              The immigration judge did not issue a decision at the end of
       the hearing because of time constraints but gave the parties a
       chance to raise any other issues and made clear that it continued
       the hearing solely to issue a decision. In fact, Roberts raised another
       issue when he sought the inclusion of a human rights report into
       evidence. But he never mentioned a motion for voluntary depar-
       ture. Because the immigration judge made clear to the parties that
       she continued the hearing only to issue an opinion and gave the
       parties the chance to raise any other issues, and because Roberts
       failed to seek voluntary departure, we hold that the BIA did not
       abuse its discretion in denying Roberts’s motion to remand.
                                      IV.

              The petition for review is DENIED.