Court Opinion

ID: 9950311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 19:00:57.972779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:36.265304
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13711   Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 1 of 10

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                        No. 21-13711 & No. 23-10475
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        TERESA NAJERA HERNANDEZ,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                               Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A078-243-398
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13711     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 2 of 10

        2                     Opinion of the Court                21-13711

        Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                In these consolidated petitions for review, Teresa Najera
        Hernandez seeks review of (1) the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
        order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s decision
        denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
        relief under the Convention Against Torture; and (2) the Board’s
        order denying her motion to reopen. We deny both of the
        petitions.
                                        I.
                In December of 2014, Teresa Najera Hernandez, a native
        and citizen of Mexico, was paroled into the United States when she
        attempted to enter without valid entry documents. At her first
        hearing, with the assistance of Uriel Delgado, an attorney from the
        law firm Kuck Baxter Immigration, LLC, she filed a Form I-589 to
        apply for asylum and withholding of removal. On the form, she
        also attempted to apply for relief under the Convention Against
        Torture (CAT), explaining her fear of being tortured if returned to
        Mexico and checking two boxes indicating that she sought CAT
        relief, though she missed a third. The immigration judge
        scheduled a hearing on the merits of her claims for March 29, 2019.
               On the date of the hearing, Najera Hernandez appeared with
        a different attorney, also from Kuck Baxter. The new attorney,
        Jorge Gavilanes, explained that Mr. Delgado had learned two days
        ago that he could not attend the hearing because of a scheduling
        conflict with another case. Although Gavilanes had prepared for
USCA11 Case: 21-13711     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 3 of 10

        21-13711              Opinion of the Court                        3

        the hearing, he requested a brief continuance—about two weeks—
        to permit Delgado to return because Najera Hernandez was
        unhappy with Gavilanes’s representation. The immigration judge
        denied the continuance, finding no good cause shown for a delay.
               At the hearing, Najera Hernandez testified that she feared
        for her safety if returned to Mexico. In September of 2014, she was
        involved in a car accident, where the driver who rear-ended her
        began verbally and physically berating her and threatening her life.
        She believed that this man was a member of organized crime.
        When police arrived at the scene, the man bribed an officer, who
        issued a citation to Najera Hernandez and ignored her complaints
        about the other driver’s threats. Later, her son was followed home
        from school by two men in a white van, whom she believed were
        attempting to kidnap him. She also saw two men sitting outside
        her home on a few different days, and believed they were
        monitoring her. She did not report either of these incidents to the
        police.
              After taking Najera Hernandez’s testimony, the
        immigration judge denied her applications for relief and ordered
        her removed to Mexico. Although the judge stated that it appeared
        she was not seeking CAT relief, the judge addressed the issue
        anyway, ruling against her eligibility for relief on the merits.
        Najera Hernandez, now proceeding pro se, appealed to the Board,
        which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.
              Now represented by new counsel from a different firm,
        Najera Hernandez filed a timely motion to reopen with the Board.
USCA11 Case: 21-13711      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                21-13711

        She principally argued that previously unavailable evidence
        showed she faced an ongoing threat if returned to Mexico. She also
        argued that the immigration judge had improperly infringed her
        right to counsel of her choosing by denying a continuance, and that
        the immigration judge had failed to give reasoned consideration to
        her CAT claim. The Board denied the motion to reopen, finding
        that Najera Hernandez’s new evidence was either cumulative to
        evidence already in the record or non-material. It also found that
        any error by the immigration judge with respect to denying a
        continuance did not prejudice Najera Hernandez, and that the
        immigration judge had given adequate consideration to her CAT
        claim.
                Najera Hernandez timely filed petitions for review from
        both the Board’s order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of
        relief and from its order declining to reopen.
                                         II.
               We review only the decision of the Board of Immigration
        Appeals, except to the extent that the Board has expressly adopted
        the immigration judge’s decision. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d
        792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). Where the Board explicitly agrees with
        the immigration judge’s findings, we review both the Board’s and
        the immigration judge’s decisions as to those issues. Id. In deciding
        whether to uphold the Board’s decision, we are limited to the
        grounds upon which the Board relied. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y
        Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016).
USCA11 Case: 21-13711      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 5 of 10

        21-13711               Opinion of the Court                        5

               We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial
        evidence and legal issues de novo. Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d
        1287, 1289 (11th Cir. 2006). An argument that the Board failed to
        give reasoned consideration to an issue is a question of law that we
        review de novo. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 799.
               We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen an
        immigration petition for abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y
        Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). “Motions to reopen in
        removal proceedings are particularly disfavored.” Id. Our review
        is limited only to determining whether the Board exercised its
        discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Id.
                                        III.
                                         A.
               Najera Hernandez’s first petition for review argues that the
        immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, by
        extension, failed to give her claim for CAT relief reasoned
        consideration. The Board must give reasoned consideration to the
        issues presented to it, meaning that its decision must show that it
        has “considered the issues raised and announced its decision in
        terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has
        heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803
        (alterations adopted) (quotation omitted). To be sure, the “Board
        does not need to do much.” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327,
        1333 (11th Cir. 2019). It “need not address specifically each piece
        of evidence the petitioner presented.” Id. (alteration adopted)
        (quotation omitted). We have held that a Board decision that “lists
USCA11 Case: 21-13711         Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 03/13/2024         Page: 6 of 10

        6                         Opinion of the Court                       21-13711

        the basic facts of the case, references the relevant regulatory and
        statutory provisions on which the order is based, and accepts
        several grounds on which the Immigration Judge properly denied
        the motion” demonstrates reasoned consideration sufficient to
        enable meaningful review. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d
        860, 874–75 (11th Cir. 2018).
                On the other hand, the Board does not give reasoned
        consideration when it “misstates the contents of the record, fails to
        adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions, or provides
        justifications for its decision which are unreasonable and which do
        not respond to any arguments in the record.” Id. at 874 (quotation
        omitted). Ultimately, for the Board’s decision to exhibit a lack of
        reasoned consideration, it must “force[] us to doubt whether we
        and the Board are, in substance, looking at the same case.” Ali, 931
        F.3d at 1334.
               The Board’s order affirming the immigration judge’s
        decision expressly adopted the immigration’s judge’s reasoning.
        The immigration judge’s analysis of Najera Hernandez’s CAT
        claim was short, no doubt because the judge concluded that Najera
        Hernandez had not intended to seek CAT relief. 1 But it still

        1 That conclusion was erroneous. Najera Hernandez indicated in at least three

        separate places on her Form I-589 that she intended to apply for CAT relief
        and explained why she feared torture if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
        § 1208.13(c)(1) (providing that an applicant will be considered for relief under
        CAT “if the applicant requests such consideration or if the evidence presented
        by the alien indicates that the alien may be tortured in the country of
        removal”).
USCA11 Case: 21-13711      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 7 of 10

        21-13711               Opinion of the Court                         7

        contained a decision on the merits and enough reasoning to enable
        meaningful review. The judge explicitly stated that Najera
        Hernandez “has not demonstrated that . . . she would more likely
        than not be tortured in the future by or with the acquiescence of
        the officials of the Mexican government.” Those findings were
        preceded by a detailed description of Najera Hernandez’s evidence,
        summarizing her past experiences in Mexico and the reasons she
        claimed she will be targeted if she returns. Pointing to specific
        contrary pieces of record evidence, the judge then described why
        Najera Hernandez had not established either that she would be
        targeted by organized crime in the future if she were to return to
        Mexico, or that “the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to
        protect her.” In other words, the judge made the necessary
        findings to support the denial of relief, and explained why those
        findings were supported by the record. That was enough.
               In her reply brief, Najera Hernandez also challenges the
        immigration judge’s finding on the merits that she was not entitled
        to CAT relief as unsupported by substantial evidence. Issues raised
        for the first time in a petitioner’s reply brief are forfeited. United
        States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2004). Najera
        Hernandez’s initial brief does not squarely present a substantial
        evidence challenge to the immigration judge’s denial of CAT relief.
        Both the “statement of issues presented” and the “summary of
        argument” reference only her argument that the judge’s decision
        lacked reasoned consideration. The body of the brief argues only
        that “remand is worthwhile” because a fuller consideration of
        Najera Hernandez’s evidence, both old and new, will establish her
USCA11 Case: 21-13711     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 8 of 10

        8                     Opinion of the Court                21-13711

        “prima facie eligibility for CAT protection.” She did not argue that
        the immigration judge’s denial on the merits was unsupported by
        substantial evidence—any new argument to that end is thus
        forfeited.
                Nevertheless, even if Najera Hernandez had raised a
        substantial evidence challenge, it would fail. In reviewing for
        substantial evidence, we will affirm the Board’s decision if it is
        “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
        the record considered as a whole.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
        1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quotation omitted). A finding
        of fact will be reversed only when the record “compels” it, not just
        because the record “may support a contrary conclusion.” Id.
               Najera Hernandez has not shown that the agency’s decision
        was not supported by substantial evidence. For the same reasons
        that the immigration judge found that Najera Hernandez could not
        establish a well-founded fear of persecution—a finding she does not
        challenge in this Court—the agency reasonably concluded that she
        could not show she would be tortured if returned to Mexico, an
        even higher burden for an applicant to satisfy. See Lingeswaran v.
        U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020). Same with the
        judge’s determination that she had not shown that the government
        of Mexico would acquiesce in any such torture—aside from the
        police officer who initially responded to the accident, Najera
        Hernandez did not formally report any of her concerns about
        organized crime to any authority. While Najera Hernandez argues
        the evidence could be weighed differently, a substantial evidence
USCA11 Case: 21-13711      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 9 of 10

        21-13711               Opinion of the Court                          9

        challenge succeeds only if the record compels a different conclusion,
        a standard not met here.
                                          B.
               Najera Hernandez’s second petition for review argues that
        the Board abused its discretion by declining to re-open after she
        presented it with new evidence bearing on her eligibility for relief.
        She also argues that the Board erred both by declining to find that
        the immigration judge improperly denied her the right to counsel
        of her choice and by failing to give reasoned consideration to the
        issue.
                A noncitizen seeking to reopen removal proceedings must
        establish the existence of new or previously unavailable material
        evidence that would likely affect the outcome of her case. 8 C.F.R.
        § 1003.23(b)(3). To establish that the changed conditions are
        material, the noncitizen “must present evidence that demonstrates
        that, if the proceedings were opened, the new evidence would
        likely change the result in the case.” Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1256–57.
               Here, the Board did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when
        it found that the evidence Najera Hernandez submitted was either
        nonmaterial or cumulative of evidence already in the record. The
        Board reasonably concluded that the new allegations of danger she
        submitted—statements from her neighbors that two men had
        recently inquired about her whereabouts—did not provide enough
        specificity to determine the affiliation of the individuals seeking her
        or their intentions. And her updated country conditions evidence
        did not paint a meaningfully different picture about the
USCA11 Case: 21-13711     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 10 of 10

        10                    Opinion of the Court                21-13711

        pervasiveness of organized crime in Mexico. We cannot say that
        the Board abused its discretion when determining that, even if
        these facts were added to the record, the outcome of the
        proceedings would not have been any different.
               Finally, the immigration judge’s denial of a continuance for
        Najera Hernandez to proceed with her original counsel, Mr.
        Delgado, does not provide this Court with a basis to vacate. The
        sine qua non of a procedural due process claim is “substantial
        prejudice.” Priva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 34 F.4th 946, 954 (11th Cir.
        2022). Under that standard, “the petitioner must demonstrate that,
        in the absence of the alleged violations, the outcome of the
        proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 955 (quotation
        omitted). Najera Hernandez has not pointed to any evidence that
        Mr. Gavilanes failed to elicit at the hearing, nor any reason why
        Mr. Delgado would have been able to secure a different outcome.
        She thus cannot show prejudice. The Board’s denial of her motion
        to reopen adequately explained as much, so her reasoned
        consideration challenge fails as well.
                                  *     *      *
              PETITIONS DENIED.