Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar FERNANDO JOSE OBANDO-BRIZUELA REBECCA HOMER BUCARDO-ESPINOSA LINDSEY FERNANDA OBANDO-BUCARDO FERNANDO YEMIL OBANDO-BURCADO v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 The eleventh-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) for a Nicaraguan national. The court applied the substantial evidence standard, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court held that the immigration judge properly considered the cumulative impact of Obando’s experiences but correctly determined that intermittent police presence outside his business and vague threats from government sympathizers constituted mere harassment rather than persecution, as they did not rise to the extreme level required by law. The court also rejected arguments regarding country conditions evidence, noting that reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were not part of the administrative record. For CAT relief, the court affirmed that substantial evidence supported the finding that Obando failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that he or his family would be tortured upon return to Nicaragua, citing the lack of prior arrests, the peaceful operation of his business until departure, and the absence of active government pursuit. The practical consequence is that the removal order against Obando and his family remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.