USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13348
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-805-711
MELVIN ISIDRO RIOS-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 11, 2021)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 2 of 10
Melvin Isidro Rios-Hernandez seeks review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. After a review of the record, we
affirm.1
I
Mr. Rios-Hernandez was born in Anamorós, La Unión, El Salvador, on
November 6, 2001. He entered the United States without valid travel documents on
June 18, 2014.
After some initial immigration proceedings, in January of 2015 Mr. Rios-
Hernandez filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and
withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CAT”), see 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
During the merits hearing before an immigration judge, Mr. Rios-Hernandez
argued that he feared that, if returned to El Salvador, he would be persecuted due to
1
As we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to address Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s
arguments.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 3 of 10
his membership in two particular social groups: (i) “the Rios-Hernandez family,”
and (ii) “neglected and abandoned young males from Anamorós.” AR at 000120–
21. Mr. Rios-Hernandez testified about his family’s history in El Salvador, its
interactions with the local gang, his and his family’s reasons for emigrating to the
United States, and his fear of persecution. Moreover, he argued that, if sent back to
El Salvador, he could be tortured.
After the hearing, the immigration judge issued her decision. She found Mr.
Rios-Hernandez credible but ruled against him on the merits. On asylum and
withholding of removal, the immigration judge concluded that Mr. Rios-
Hernandez’s proposed groups did not qualify as particular social groups under the
INA. She also determined that Mr. Rios-Hernandez had not established that he was
a member of “neglected and abandoned young males from Anamorós.” Moreover,
the immigration judge found that, even if the proposed particular social groups were
cognizable, Mr. Rios-Hernandez had not established that his alleged persecution
would be on account of his membership in those particular social groups.
The immigration judge also denied Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s request for relief
under the CAT on two grounds. First, she found that Mr. Rios-Hernandez had not
established that the government of El Salvador instigates, consents, or acquiesces to
any torturous gang conduct. Second, the immigration judge determined that the harm
that Mr. Rios-Hernandez had experienced in the past did not amount to torture under
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 4 of 10
the CAT—a finding that cut against his argument that he would likely be tortured if
returned to El Salvador.
Mr. Rios-Hernandez appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board
of Immigration Appeals. The BIA dismissed his appeal, adopting and affirming the
immigration judge’s decision. It also identified the portions of the immigration
judge’s reasoning that it found most persuasive. Regarding asylum and withholding
of removal, the BIA noted that it agreed with the immigration judge that even if Mr.
Rios-Hernandez’s proposed groups qualified as particular social groups under the
INA, he had not established that any persecution he suffered or feared would be on
account of his membership in those groups. As to CAT relief, the BIA explained that
it agreed with the immigration judge that the past harm that Mr. Rios-Hernandez had
suffered did not amount to torture, and that he had not established that, if removed,
he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El
Salvador.
II
We generally review only the decision of the BIA, but we also review the
decision of the immigration judge when the BIA expressly adopts it. See Mohammed
v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
547 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, the BIA expressly
adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. As a result, we review the
decisions and reasoning of both the BIA and the immigration judge. See
id.
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 5 of 10
We review the BIA’s and immigration judge’s conclusions of law—including
whether a group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the INA—de novo.
See Gonzalez v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review
factual findings for substantial evidence. See
Mohammed, 547 F.3d at 1344.
Accordingly, “findings of fact . . . may be reversed by this court only when the record
compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion
is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v.
Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
III
In his petition for review, Mr. Rios-Hernandez challenges the BIA’s and
immigration judge’s decisions on his request for asylum and withholding of removal
under the INA and his request for relief under the CAT. We address each argument
below.
A
With regard to asylum and withholding of removal, Mr. Rios-Hernandez
argues, among other things, (i) that the immigration judge erred in concluding that
the “Rios-Hernandez family” group did not qualify as a particular social group under
the INA, (ii) that the immigration judge erred in concluding that he was not a
member of the “neglected and abandoned young males from Anamorós” group, and
(iii) that the BIA and immigration judge erred in finding that he had not established
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 6 of 10
that his purported persecution was on account of his proposed particular social
groups. We disagree.
To be granted asylum, an alien must prove that he is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(A) and (B)(i). The INA defines “refugee” as a person who is outside
of his country, “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.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42). To establish that he is a member of a “particular social group,” an
alien must prove that he is a member of a group that is (i) “composed of members
who share a common immutable characteristic,” (ii) “defined with particularity,”
and (iii) “socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.
& N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). See also
Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 404.
To receive a withholding of removal to a particular country, an alien must
prove that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of [her]
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Where an applicant fails to meet the “well-
founded fear” standard for asylum, he is generally precluded from qualifying for
withholding of removal. See Mazariegos v. Off. of U.S. Atty. Gen.,
241 F.3d 1320,
1324 (11th Cir. 2001).
6
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 7 of 10
We deny Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s petition for review because he has not
convincingly challenged the immigration judge’s conclusion that his proposed
particular social groups were not cognizable under the INA. The immigration judge
determined that the “Rios-Hernandez family” group did not qualify as a particular
social group under the INA because it was not defined with particularity nor socially
distinct within Salvadoran society. Mr. Rios-Hernandez argues that the immigration
judge’s determination on the “particularity” element is internally contradictory, but
he does not challenge the immigration judge’s determination on the “socially
distinct” element. In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle
of party presentation. See United States v. Sineneng-Smith,
140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579
(2020). In other words, we do not construct arguments that parties have not
themselves raised. See
id. Social distinction is necessary for a group to qualify as a
particular social group under the INA. See
Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 404. Because Mr.
Rios-Hernandez does not challenge the immigration judge’s conclusion on that
element, he cannot succeed in his petition for review as it relates to his first proposed
particular social group. Cf. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680
(11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an appealed decision will be affirmed where the
appellant does not challenge properly all the grounds on which the decision is based).
As to the “neglected and abandoned young males from Anamorós” group, the
immigration judge concluded that it was not cognizable because its members did not
7
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 8 of 10
share an immutable characteristic, it was not defined with particularity, and it was
not socially distinct within Salvadoran society. The immigration judge also found
that Mr. Rios- Hernandez had not established that he was a member of that group.
Before us, Mr. Rios-Hernandez challenges only the immigration judge’s
conclusion about his group membership. He does not challenge the immigration
judge’s conclusion that the group lacked all three elements necessary to qualify as
particular social group. Accordingly, however we might rule on his membership
argument, Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s petition for review fails in regard to his second
proposed particular social group. See
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.
Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s failure to establish that his proposed groups qualify as
particular social groups under the INA is dispositive on his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. 2
IV
Mr. Rios-Hernandez also contends that the BIA and immigration judge erred
in denying his request for CAT relief. He says that he would be tortured if he is
removed to El Salvador because the severe violence perpetrated by local gangs can
be a form of torture. Additionally, he alleges that El Salvador would de facto be
acquiescing to his torture because it has been indifferent to the violence perpetrated
2
As a result, we do not address his remaining arguments relating to those requests.
8
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 9 of 10
by local gangs. We disagree.
Under the CAT, an alien’s removal to a designated country is withheld if he
shows that it is more likely than not that upon removal to that country he would be
tortured. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). For an act to constitute “torture” under the
CAT, it must be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting
in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
Where, as in Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s case, an alien fears torture by private
actors, he must show that the government has acquiesced to that torture. See
id. See
also Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
369 F.3d 1239, 1242–3 (11th Cir. 2004). A
government acquiesces to torture when it “breaches its responsibility to intervene.”
Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007). But “[a]
government does not acquiesce to torture where it actively, albeit not entirely
successfully, combats the alleged torture.” Lingeswaran v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
969 F.3d
1278, 1294 (11th Cir. 2020).
Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s challenge to the BIA’s and the immigration judge’s
decision on CAT relief fails because there is substantial evidence in the record that
supports the finding that El Salvador would not acquiesce to his torture by local
gangs. In fact, the immigration judge cited to various portions of the record which
evince that, if anything, El Salvador has taken a heavy-handed approach to
9
USCA11 Case: 20-13348 Date Filed: 05/11/2021 Page: 10 of 10
combatting gang violence. For example, beginning in April 2016, El Salvador
prevented communication between imprisoned gang members and outside members,
suspended communication between inmates and their families and attorneys, and
isolated known gang leaders in higher security prisons. The immigration judge’s
conclusion is also supported by other evidence in the record. Though its measures
have not been fully effective, the evidence does not show that El Salvador has been
passive or indifferent to gang violence. Hence, the record does not compel reversal
of the BIA’s and immigration judge’s finding that Mr. Rios-Hernandez failed to
establish that El Salvador would acquiesce to his torture by local gangs.
Because our ruling on this point is dispositive on Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s
petition for review as it relates to his request for CAT relief, we do not address his
remaining arguments relevant to that request.
V
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Mr. Rios-Hernandez’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
10
