Background
Elizabeth Lesvia Perez Roblero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the court of appeals, she argued that the immigration judge erred in determining that her family membership was not a cognizable particular social group and that the Board should have corrected that alleged error.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit said it would not consider Perez Roblero’s argument about whether her family membership was a cognizable particular social group because the Board did not decide that issue. The court explained that the Board instead ruled that Perez Roblero failed to challenge the immigration judge’s findings that her asylum application was untimely and that she could internally relocate to avoid future harm. Because Perez Roblero did not challenge those Board rulings in her petition for review, her argument that the Board should have addressed and corrected the immigration judge’s social-group analysis failed. The court added that the Board need not make findings on issues unnecessary to its decision.
What it means going forward
The denial leaves in place the Board’s final order affirming the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The decision also underscores that a petitioner must challenge the Board’s actual dispositive rulings on review, and that the court of appeals will not reach issues the Board did not decide.