Natalia Morozova v. U.S. Attorney General

── Natalia Morozova v. U.S. Attorney General ── Case No.: 25-11613 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 12, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11613 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026 Page: 1 of 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11613 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NATALIA MOROZOVA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A203-515-098 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Natalia Morozova petitions for review of the Board of Im- migration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her claim for withholding of removal. She USCA11 Case: 25-11613 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11613 argues that: (1) the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and the IJ erred in finding that she had not submitted adequate corroborating evidence; (2) the agency erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of perse- cution at the hands of her ex-boyfriend if returned to Moldova; and (3) the agency failed to properly analyze her proposed particular social group. After thorough review, we deny the petition. I. We review only “the [BIA]’s decision -- not the immigration judge’s decision -- unless the [BIA] expressly adopted the immigra- tion judge’s opinion.” Clement v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 75 F.4th 1193, 1199 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). Where the BIA expressly agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). This scope of re- view “reflects the well-established administrative law principle that the grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was based.” Clement, 75 F.4th at 1199 (citation modified). “We do not consider issues that were not reached by the BIA.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016), abrogated in part on other grounds by Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard is a ques- tion of law we review de novo. Farah v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12 F.4th 1312, 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419–23 (2023); see also USCA11 Case: 25-11613 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026 Page: 3 of 10 25-11613 Opinion of the Court 3 NLRB v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 557 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1977) (noting that “an agency must either conform itself to its own prior decisions or else explain the reason for its departure”).1 We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Murugan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 10 F.4th 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2021). Under the substan- tial evidence standard, we “must affirm