Case: 19-14077 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14077
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A208-538-837
MARIA JOSE OLIVA-GARCIA,
SEBASTIAN JOSE OLIVA-GARCIA,
JADE MARCELA ZELAYA-OLIVA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 16, 2020)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-14077 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 4
Maria Jose Oliva-Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, and her two
children, as her derivative beneficiaries, petition for review of the order of that
affirmed the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Oliva also applied for relief under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17, but she does not petition
us to review that decision and has abandoned any argument she could have made
for that form of immigration relief. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). The Board of Immigration Appeals assumed that
Oliva was credible and found that she failed to prove that she suffered past
persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her
membership in a social group of “immediate family members of Raul Zelaya.”
Oliva argues that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to her arguments
on appeal, that she is entitled to asylum, and that the immigration judge erred in
finding her not credible. We deny Oliva’s petition.
We review issues of law de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
810 F.3d 792,
799 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review only the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals, except to the extent that the Board expressly adopts the immigration
judge’s opinion.” Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
764 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2014)
(alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Case: 19-14077 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 3 of 4
The Board gave reasoned consideration to Oliva’s arguments. The Board
“considered the issues raised and announced its decision in terms sufficient . . . to
perceive that it . . . heard and thought and not merely acted” on Oliva’s appeal.
Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803 (alterations adopted) (quoting Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
663
F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011)). In response to Oliva’s challenge to the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, the Board credited her testimony.
The Board accepted as true Oliva’s story that her father-in-law, Zelaya, killed a
man whose family, the Matutes, vowed to exact vengeance on Oliva’s husband;
that, in 2012, some of the Matutes were arrested for shooting at Oliva’s home
while her family was elsewhere; that, in 2014, one of the Matutes saw Oliva and
threatened her; and that her family remained in Honduras unharmed until 2015,
when they traveled to the United States. Based on those facts, the Board
determined that Oliva failed to “demonstrate past harm which rises to the level of
past persecution.” The Board also determined that, without proof that Oliva “was
harmed or targeted on account of [her family membership] or that she is unable to
reasonably relocate within Honduras to avoid harm,” she failed to “establish[] a
well-founded fear of persecution in Honduras.” Because the Board considered
Oliva’s evidence and explained its decision in terms sufficient to enable
meaningful appellate review, its decision, though brief, is supported by reasoned
consideration. See
Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803.
3
Case: 19-14077 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 4 of 4
Oliva fails to satisfy the criteria to qualify for asylum. To be eligible for
asylum, Oliva has to establish that she suffered past persecution or that she has a
well-founded fear of future persecution in her homeland. Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006). And to prove a well-founded fear of future
persecution, Oliva has to establish that “there is a reasonable possibility [s]he will
suffer such persecution” that cannot be avoided by relocating within her homeland.
8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2); Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
572 F.3d 1196, 1200 (11th
Cir. 2009). Oliva does not dispute the findings of the Board that she failed to prove
past persecution and that relocation is a viable option for her. So Oliva is ineligible
for asylum.
Oliva argues that the immigration judge erred when he found her not
credible, but we will not review a finding that the Board did not adopt. “We review
only the decision of the Board, except when the Board expressly adopts the
reasoning of the immigration judge.”
Malu, 764 F.3d at 1289. The Board assumed
“the veracity of [Oliva’s] testimony.” The adverse credibility finding of the
immigration judge does not provide Oliva a ground for reversal.
We DENY Oliva’s petition for review.
4
