Filed: Feb. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-13426 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 27, 2012 _ JOHN LEY CLERK Agency No. A087-385-863 WALTER TRINDADE, CHRISTIANE DA COSTA LOPES TRINDADE, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Apeals _ (February 27, 2012) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Walter Trindade a
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-13426 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 27, 2012 _ JOHN LEY CLERK Agency No. A087-385-863 WALTER TRINDADE, CHRISTIANE DA COSTA LOPES TRINDADE, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Apeals _ (February 27, 2012) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Walter Trindade an..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-13426 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 27, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A087-385-863
WALTER TRINDADE,
CHRISTIANE DA COSTA LOPES TRINDADE,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Apeals
________________________
(February 27, 2012)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Trindade and his wife, Christiane da Costa Lopes Trindade, natives
and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of a decision affirming the denial of their
applications for withholding of removal and denying their request to reinstate an
order allowing them to depart the United States voluntarily. We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the Trindades’ request to
reinstate the order of voluntary departure. As a condition of voluntary departure,
the immigration judge ordered the Trindades to post a voluntary departure bond.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(i). A regulation governing
voluntary departure provides that, unless an alien “within 30 days of filing of an
appeal with the Board, submit[s] sufficient proof of having posted the required
voluntary departure bond[,] . . . . . the Board will not reinstate the period of
voluntary departure in its final order,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii), and “[n]o court
may review [that] regulation,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(e). The Board found that the
Trindades failed timely to prove that they had paid the bond, and the Trindades do
not challenge that finding. Because section 1229c(e) divests us of authority to
review the decision of the Board, we dismiss the Trindades’ petition for review of
the denial to reinstate the order of voluntary departure.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that the Trindades failed to
establish that they suffered or would likely suffer persecution on account of a
protected ground. The Trindades alleged in their applications that they were
2
members of a social group who, upon returning to Brazil from the United States,
would be “attractive targets to criminal gangs.” The Trindades submitted evidence
about shootings and thefts in their hometown in Brazil, but the Trindades failed to
connect the crimes to the social group defined in their applications. The Trindades
argue, for the first time, that they are members of a “family . . .[who] may in fact
have shared the same experience of violence and/or criminal activity” because a
murder occurred in front of the home of Walter’s parents and two persons robbed
a business owned by Walter’s brother, but we lack jurisdiction to consider this
argument. “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, ‘we lack jurisdiction to
consider claims that have not been raised before the [Board].’”
Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Sundar v. INS,
328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003)). We deny the
Trindades’ petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. I
3