David Norouzi v. U.S. Attorney General , 315 F. App'x 766 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                   FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 08-12291                  ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    November 20, 2008
    Non-Argument Calendar
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________
    CLERK
    Agency Nos. A76-242-833,
    A78-353-344
    DAVID NOROUZI,
    a.k.a. Nourouzzi, David, a.k.a. Norouzzi, Daviv,
    JILA SARDARI AMIDABADI,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    _________________________
    (November 20, 2008)
    Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Petitioners David Norouzi, who is a native of Iran and a citizen of France,
    and Jila Sardari-Amidabadi, who is a native and citizen of Iran, seek review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision, affirming the immigration judge’s
    (“IJ”) denial of their application for withholding of removal under the Immigration
    and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention
    Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    (“CAT”). In this petition, Norouzi and Sardari-Amidabadi (collectively
    “petitioners”) argue that they are entitled to withholding of removal and CAT relief
    because the IJ found their testimony credible, the Government failed to present any
    evidence that they did not possess a credible fear of persecution, and their
    persecution was based on their association with Abbas.1
    “[We] review[] administrative fact findings under the highly deferential
    substantial evidence test,” which requires that we review the record evidence in the
    light most favorable to the agency’s decision. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 
    386 F.3d 1022
    ,
    1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “To conclude the BIA’s decision should be
    reversed, we must find that the record not only supports the conclusion, but
    compels it.” Niftaliev v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    504 F.3d 1211
    , 1215 (11th Cir. 2007)
    (quoting Ruiz v. Gonzalez, 
    479 F.3d 762
    , 765 (11th Cir. 2007)). We only review
    the BIA’s decision, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v.
    1
    Norouzi did not oppose the Government’s motion to pretermit his asylum application,
    and Sardari-Amidabadi abandoned her asylum claim on appeal.
    2
    Gonzales, 
    479 F.3d 762
    , 765 (11th Cir. 2007).
    We lack jurisdiction to review claims that were not raised before the BIA,
    even if the BIA sua sponte considered the claim. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    463 F.3d 1247
    , 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Fernandez-Bernal v. Att’y
    Gen. Of U.S., 
    257 F.3d 1304
    , 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001). We have jurisdiction,
    however, if a petitioner asserts his “core issue” before the BIA. Montano Cisneros
    v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    514 F.3d 1224
    , 1228 n.3 (11th Cir. 2008).
    I. Withholding of removal
    An applicant seeking withholding of removal must establish that her “life or
    freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion,
    nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3)(A) (quoted in Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    446 F.3d 1369
    , 1375
    (11th Cir. 2006)). The burden of proof is on the alien to show that it is “more
    likely than not” that, upon return to her country, she will be persecuted. Tan, 
    446 F.3d at 1375
    . An individual’s testimony, “‘if credible, may be sufficient to sustain
    the burden of proof without corroboration.’” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    327 F.3d 1283
    , 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (b)). An alien must
    demonstrate a nexus between her past persecution and one of the protected
    grounds. See Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    392 F.3d 434
    , 438 (11th Cir. 2004).
    We conclude from the record that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
    3
    conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish past persecution, or a well-
    founded fear of future persecution, as their testimony established that there was not
    a nexus between their persecution and a protected ground.
    II. CAT
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ CAT claim, as they did not
    present it before the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga, 
    463 F.3d at 1250-51
    .
    PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
    4