Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-10675 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
Agency No. A200-293-549
TERESA ANDRES-MENDEZ, a.k.a. Anita Pascual-Jose,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________
(October 1, 2020) Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Teresa Andres-Mendez petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Andres argues the IJ erred in:
(1) discounting the affidavit of her expert; (2) finding her particular social group
was not cognizable; (3) finding there was no nexus between the persecution she
suffered and her membership in the group; and (4) finding she would not be
subject to torture at the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. The
Government responds we lack jurisdiction because Andres failed to exhaust certain
claims before the BIA. After review,1 we dismiss the petition.
I. DISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal only when a
petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available to her as of right.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “A petitioner fails to exhaust her administrative
remedies with respect to a particular claim when she does not raise that claim
before the BIA.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir.
1 We review the issue of our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, “we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8
2015). To exhaust a claim before the BIA, a petitioner must both raise the core
issue now on appeal and “set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of
that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). The
petitioner’s argument need not be well developed, but it must “provide information
sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Indrawati,
779 F.3d at 1297.
A. Expert’s Affidavit
Andres first argues the IJ erred in discounting her expert’s affidavit, which
amounted to a violation of her due process rights. The Government asserts we lack
jurisdiction to review this claim because it was not raised before the BIA. The IJ
admitted the expert’s written testimony as it pertained to “country condition
expertise and impact of country conditions on indigenous and Mayan women in
Guatemala,” but disregarded “any inappropriate conclusions of fact or law.” In her
appeal to the BIA, Andres raised a due process argument concerning other
testimony, asserted the IJ’s passing reference to her failure to sufficiently
corroborate her asylum claim was insufficient, and stated the IJ made no mention
of the documentary evidence she submitted regarding the conditions faced by
women in Guatemala. She did not, however, argue the IJ failed to properly
consider her expert’s affidavit or explain which portions of the expert’s testimony
would not be credited. Because Andres did not raise this claim before the BIA, we
3 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 4 of 8
lack jurisdiction to review it. See Jeune, 810 F.3d 800; see also Bing Quan Lin v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2018) (requiring procedural due
process claims that can be remedied by the immigration courts to be exhausted).
B. Asylum
With respect to her asylum claim, Andres challenges the IJ’s determination
her particular social group was not cognizable and that there was no nexus between
the persecution she suffered and her membership in the group. The Government
contends Andres failed to exhaust challenges to two dispositive determinations
requiring the denial of asylum—the IJ’s determination the proposed group’s
definition was impermissibly circular and the IJ’s determination Andres had not
established a nexus between her persecution and group membership.
An asylum applicant must meet the definition of a refugee under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines
a refugee as “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality
. . . and 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 a protected ground, including
“membership in a particular social group.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant
seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must show such
membership “was or will be at least one central reason” for her persecution. See
4 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 5 of 8
id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To be cognizable, a particular social group must: (1) consist
of members who share a “common characteristic other than their risk of being
persecuted” that is immutable or fundamental to their conscience or identity;
(2) have “sufficient social distinction” from the rest of society; and (3) be “defined
with particularity.” Amezcua-Preciado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 943 F.3d 1337, 1342-43
(11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted).
The IJ found Andres’s proposed social group—“[w]omen who are culturally
married and victims of domestic violence by spouse and cannot leave”—was not
cognizable because it did not meet any of the requisite criteria. The IJ relied on,
and distinguished Andres’s case from, Matter of A-R-C-G-, in which the BIA held
a domestic violence victim was a member of a particular social group comprised of
“married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” 26 I. &
N. Dec. 388, 388-89 (BIA 2014), overruled by Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316
(BIA 2018). Specifically, the IJ concluded Andres’s group was not defined with
sufficient particularity because it was “impermissibly circular by the fact that its
members have been subjected to harm.”
On appeal to the BIA, Andres did not challenge the IJ’s conclusion her
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-10675 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
Agency No. A200-293-549
TERESA ANDRES-MENDEZ, a.k.a. Anita Pascual-Jose,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________
(October 1, 2020) Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Teresa Andres-Mendez petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Andres argues the IJ erred in:
(1) discounting the affidavit of her expert; (2) finding her particular social group
was not cognizable; (3) finding there was no nexus between the persecution she
suffered and her membership in the group; and (4) finding she would not be
subject to torture at the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. The
Government responds we lack jurisdiction because Andres failed to exhaust certain
claims before the BIA. After review,1 we dismiss the petition.
I. DISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal only when a
petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available to her as of right.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “A petitioner fails to exhaust her administrative
remedies with respect to a particular claim when she does not raise that claim
before the BIA.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir.
1 We review the issue of our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, “we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8
2015). To exhaust a claim before the BIA, a petitioner must both raise the core
issue now on appeal and “set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of
that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). The
petitioner’s argument need not be well developed, but it must “provide information
sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Indrawati,
779 F.3d at 1297.
A. Expert’s Affidavit
Andres first argues the IJ erred in discounting her expert’s affidavit, which
amounted to a violation of her due process rights. The Government asserts we lack
jurisdiction to review this claim because it was not raised before the BIA. The IJ
admitted the expert’s written testimony as it pertained to “country condition
expertise and impact of country conditions on indigenous and Mayan women in
Guatemala,” but disregarded “any inappropriate conclusions of fact or law.” In her
appeal to the BIA, Andres raised a due process argument concerning other
testimony, asserted the IJ’s passing reference to her failure to sufficiently
corroborate her asylum claim was insufficient, and stated the IJ made no mention
of the documentary evidence she submitted regarding the conditions faced by
women in Guatemala. She did not, however, argue the IJ failed to properly
consider her expert’s affidavit or explain which portions of the expert’s testimony
would not be credited. Because Andres did not raise this claim before the BIA, we
3 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 4 of 8
lack jurisdiction to review it. See Jeune, 810 F.3d 800; see also Bing Quan Lin v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2018) (requiring procedural due
process claims that can be remedied by the immigration courts to be exhausted).
B. Asylum
With respect to her asylum claim, Andres challenges the IJ’s determination
her particular social group was not cognizable and that there was no nexus between
the persecution she suffered and her membership in the group. The Government
contends Andres failed to exhaust challenges to two dispositive determinations
requiring the denial of asylum—the IJ’s determination the proposed group’s
definition was impermissibly circular and the IJ’s determination Andres had not
established a nexus between her persecution and group membership.
An asylum applicant must meet the definition of a refugee under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines
a refugee as “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality
. . . and 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 a protected ground, including
“membership in a particular social group.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant
seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must show such
membership “was or will be at least one central reason” for her persecution. See
4 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 5 of 8
id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To be cognizable, a particular social group must: (1) consist
of members who share a “common characteristic other than their risk of being
persecuted” that is immutable or fundamental to their conscience or identity;
(2) have “sufficient social distinction” from the rest of society; and (3) be “defined
with particularity.” Amezcua-Preciado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 943 F.3d 1337, 1342-43
(11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted).
The IJ found Andres’s proposed social group—“[w]omen who are culturally
married and victims of domestic violence by spouse and cannot leave”—was not
cognizable because it did not meet any of the requisite criteria. The IJ relied on,
and distinguished Andres’s case from, Matter of A-R-C-G-, in which the BIA held
a domestic violence victim was a member of a particular social group comprised of
“married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” 26 I. &
N. Dec. 388, 388-89 (BIA 2014), overruled by Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316
(BIA 2018). Specifically, the IJ concluded Andres’s group was not defined with
sufficient particularity because it was “impermissibly circular by the fact that its
members have been subjected to harm.”
On appeal to the BIA, Andres did not challenge the IJ’s conclusion her
proposed social group was circularly defined, or any of its determinations
regarding immutability, particularity, or social distinction. Rather, Andres argued
Matter of A-R-C-G- had been overruled by Matter of A-B- since the issuance of the
5 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 6 of 8
IJ’s decision, and Matter of A-B- impacted the particular social group analysis and
acknowledged the relevance of a foreign government’s inability or unwillingness
to protect an applicant from persecution. Andres does not make these arguments in
her petition for review, however. Instead, she contends Matter of A-R-C-G-
governs the particular social group analysis, and marital status—which may be
based on cultural rather than formally recorded marriage—can be an immutable
characteristic where an individual is unable to leave a relationship. She further
asserts her proposed social group is defined with sufficient particularity and is
socially distinct.
While Andres challenged the IJ’s particular social group determination
before the BIA, she failed to raise any discrete arguments concerning immutability,
particularity, and social distinction similar to those she raises now. She has
therefore failed to exhaust her particular social group claim. See Jeune, 810 F.3d
at 800-01 (concluding petitioner failed to exhaust past persecution claim where he
did not raise before the BIA the discrete arguments raised in his petition for review
and “gave the BIA no indication of the specific issues . . . it should have
examined”). Further, Andres failed to challenge the IJ’s finding her particular
social group was circularly defined in terms of harm, which is dispositive of her
asylum claim. See Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1198 (11th
Cir. 2006) (providing “risk of persecution alone does not create a particular social
6 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 7 of 8
group within the meaning of the INA”); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208,
215 (BIA 2014) (“Circuit courts have long recognized that a social group must
have ‘defined boundaries’ or a ‘limiting characteristic,’ other than the risk of being
persecuted, in order to be recognized.”). 2
C. CAT Relief and Withholding of Removal
Andres last argues the IJ erred in finding she would not be subject to torture
at the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government and concluding she was
ineligible for CAT relief. The Government asserts Andres failed to exhaust her
claims for CAT relief and withholding of removal because she did not raise them
in her brief before the BIA, which addressed only her asylum claim. We agree.
Although Andres mentioned in her notice of appeal to the BIA she was challenging
the IJ’s denial of CAT relief and withholding of removal, these unadorned and
conclusory statements were insufficient to exhaust these claims, and we therefore
lack jurisdiction to review them. See Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297 (“Unadorned,
conclusory statements do not satisfy [the exhaustion] requirement.”).
2 We need not reach Andres’s nexus argument because she has not raised any challenge to the particular social group determination that we have jurisdiction to review. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (providing courts “are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach”). 7 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 8 of 8
II. CONCLUSION
Because Andres failed to exhaust before the BIA the issue concerning her
expert, her arguments concerning why her particular social group was cognizable,
and her claims for CAT relief and withholding of removal, we lack jurisdiction
over this petition for review. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
PETITION DISMISSED.