Marie Supreme v. U.S. Attorney General

── Marie Supreme v. U.S. Attorney General ── Case No.: 25-12523 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 30, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12523 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12523 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JEAN ELIE LOUISIL, MARIE DARLINE SUPREME, DAELY YAMALA LOUISIL-SUPREME, MALORY ESTHER LOUISIL-SUPREME, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A220-448-696 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12523 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12523 1 Jean Elie Louisil petitions for review of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum under Immigra- tion and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), with- holding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish- ment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). He argues that the BIA erred in finding that he did not establish a nexus between feared persecu- tion and a protected ground and that his resettlement from Haiti to Chile before entering the United States barred his application for asylum. He further argues that cumulative error warranted rever- sal. Additionally, he argues that the IJ deprived him of due process and a fair hearing by objecting to his counsel’s line of questioning. The government responds by moving for summary affirmance. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where . . . the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 The petitioners in this case are Jean Elie Louisil; his wife, Marie Darline Su- preme; and their two minor daughters, Daely Yamala Louisil-Supreme and Malory Esther Louisil-Supreme. Louisil is the lead petitioner and listied the other petitioners as derivative beneficiaries. USCA11 Case: 25-12523 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-12523 Opinion of the Court 3 We only review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016), overruled in part on other grounds by, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419-23 & n.2 (2023). Where the BIA explicitly agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision to that extent. Id. We review constitutional challenges, including alleged due process