Blanca Boyzo Quiroz v. U.S. Attorney General

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-10802
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-10802 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10802 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BLANCA NORA BOYZO QUIROZ, EVELENE PEREZ BOYZO, CARLOS PEREZ BOYZO, EDGAR ALONZO PEREZ BOYZO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10802 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10802

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A244-009-408 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Blanca Nora Boyzo Quiroz, a native of Mexico, petitions pro se and on behalf of her three minor children for review of an order affirming the denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for re- lief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that Boyzo Quiroz was ineligible for asylum and with- holding of removal because she had not established that Mexico was unable or unwilling to protect her or that she was unable to relocate. The Board also agreed that Boyzo Quiroz was ineligible for relief under the Convention because she had not established that she would be tortured in Mexico by or at the acquiescence of its officials. We deny the petition. We review only the decision of the Board, except to the ex- tent that the Board expressly adopted or agreed with the immigra- tion judge’s decision. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). We review factual findings for substantial USCA11 Case: 24-10802 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 Page: 3 of 5

24-10802 Opinion of the Court 3

evidence and must affirm if the findings are “supported by reason- able, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We can reverse “only if the record compels reversal, and the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is insuffi- cient to justify reversal.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We review claims of legal error de novo. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). We do not address Boyzo Quiroz’s challenges that the Board did not address, see Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016), and we liberally construe Boyzo Quiroz’s pro se brief to challenge each of the Board’s findings, see Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Boyzo Quiroz had not established that Mexico was unable or unwilling to protect her. To establish persecution by a private actor, an asylum appli- cant must prove that her “home country is unable or unwilling to protect” her. Ayala, 605 F.3d at 950. The record supports a finding that, although Mexicans suffer from violence, gang activity, and in- effective investigation and prosecution of crimes, Mexico is trying to combat organized crime. Boyzo Quiroz testified that she did not know the names of the men who harmed her when she reported the violence by cartel members to police, so the immigration judge found that even though she stated the police did nothing for her, there was insufficient information for them to help her. The record does not compel reversal of the finding that she had not established USCA11 Case: 24-10802 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10802

that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect her. Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Boyzo Quiroz failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because internal relocation in Mexico was reasonable. “An appli- cant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the appli- cant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Boyzo Quiroz testified that she lived in Morelia for two and a half months without seeing her attackers. Although she was in hiding, she did not provide evidence that the cartel members would follow her to Morelia or to another town when they targeted her for op- erating a business in a specific part of her town. Boyzo Quiroz also testified that she had family still living in Mexico that had not expe- rienced incidents of violence. The record does not compel reversal of the finding that Boyzo Quiroz could reasonably relocate. And Boyzo Quiroz’s failure to establish that she is eligible for asylum necessarily defeats her argument that she is otherwise eligible for withholding of removal. See Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 1283, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2021). To the extent Boyzo Quiroz argues that the Board conflated the legal standard for asylum with that for relief under the Conven- tion, we disagree. The Board affirmed the immigration judge’s de- cision describing the correct legal standard and considering all rel- evant evidence, which included whether there was evidence of past torture. See K.Y. v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 43 F.4th 1175, 1181 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 24-10802 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 Page: 5 of 5

24-10802 Opinion of the Court 5

2022) (holding that courts must consider all relevant evidence, in- cluding whether the applicant experienced past torture, whether the applicant could avoid future torture by relocating within the country, and evidence about wider country conditions). And sub- stantial evidence supports the finding that Boyzo Quiroz had not established that it was more likely than not she would be tortured in Mexico by or with the acquiescence of its officials because the police filed a report for her and the government is trying to combat the cartels, even if unsuccessfully. See Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281, 1288 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that a govern- ment does not acquiesce to torture by non-state actors so long as it combats the unlawful activity, even if it is unsuccessful). We DENY the petition for review.