[DO NOT PUBLISH]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