Amelia Chum-Pastor v. U.S. Attorney General

── Amelia Chum-Pastor v. U.S. Attorney General ── Case No.: 25-11585 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 09, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11585 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/06/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11585 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ AMELIA CHUM-PASTOR, EDISON G. CIFUENTES-CHUM, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. 212-949-934 ____________________ Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11585 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/06/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11585 Amelia Chum-Pastor and her minor son, E.G.C.C., petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final ordering af- firming the immigration judge’s denial of their respective applica- tions for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De- grading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). They argue that the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration or make adequate findings because it did not expressly and inde- pendently rule on E.G.C.C.’s appeal, who filed his own application and was also a rider and derivative beneficiary of Ms. Chum-Pas- tor’s application. The government responds by moving for sum- mary disposition. 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). We review legal issues, including whether the agency failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue, de novo. See Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 33 F.4th 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2022), overruled in part on other grounds by, Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419-23 & n.2 (2023). An appellant who fails to argue an issue in her opening USCA11 Case: 25-11585 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/06/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-11585 Opinion of the Court 3 brief generally abandons that issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). We only review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Se Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016), overruled in part on other grounds by, Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 419-23 & n.2. Where the BIA explic- itly agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s deci- sion to that extent. See id. Generally, courts and agencies need not make findings on issues if those findings are unnecessary to the re- sults they reach. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). The BIA must give “re