Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar DANNY LEO VALDIVIA-ALEMAN JENNIFER VALESKA REYES-JAENZ JAYDEN LEONARDO VALDIVIA-REYES JAYKOB OSDANNY VALDIVIA-REYES v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-27 The eleventh-circuit denied the petition for review filed by Danny Leo Valdivia-Aleman and his family seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order upholding the immigration judge’s denial of these claims based on an adverse credibility determination. The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review to the BIA’s factual findings and credibility determinations, noting that an adverse credibility finding can alone support a denial of asylum if supported by specific, cogent reasons. The court held that Valdivia-Aleman failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding nine of the thirteen inconsistencies cited by the immigration judge and his argument that the judge failed to consider corroborating evidence; consequently, these issues were precluded from review under *Santos-Zacaria v. Garland*. Regarding the exhausted claims, the court found the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination supported by substantial evidence, citing specific inconsistencies in testimony regarding protest attendance, the petitioner’s wife’s membership in a political organization, and discrepancies between documentary evidence and oral testimony. Furthermore, the court ruled that because Valdivia-Aleman failed to establish eligibility for asylum due to lack of credibility, he necessarily could not demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection. As a result of this decision, the petition is denied, and the BIA’s order affirming the denial of all requested relief remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.