USCA11 Case: 25-11161 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2025 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11161 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOSE TOBIAS BARRERA-CASTILLO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A202-081-250 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joseph Tobias Barrera-Castillo, a native of El Salvador, peti- tions for review of an order affirming the denial of his applications USCA11 Case: 25-11161 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2025 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11161 for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Im- migration Appeals ruled that Barrera-Castillo was ineligible for asy- lum and withholding of removal because he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground under the Act. Barrera-Castillo argues that the Board erred when it found that the harm he feared from the Mara Salvatrucha, a Salvadoran gang, was not based on either his membership in a particular social group or his expression of a political opinion. He also argues that the Board failed to consider his arguments and evidence; it applied a higher standard of proof to his request for asylum; and it erred when it exercised jurisdiction despite a defective notice to appear. No reversible error occurred. We deny the petition. We review the decision of the Board unless it “expressly adopted or agreed with the immigration judge’s decision.” Hasan- Nayem v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 55 F.4th 831, 842 (11th Cir. 2022). We re- view legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, we “review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s de- cision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We will not disturb factual findings that are “supported by reasonable, substan- tial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The “mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is insufficient to justify reversal.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omit- ted). USCA11 Case: 25-11161 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2025 Page: 3 of 5 25-11161 Opinion of the Court 3 The Board gave reasoned consideration to Barrera-Castillo’s arguments and evidence. See Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 874-75 (11th Cir. 2018), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419-23 & n.2 (2023) (“[T]he [Board]’s order is capable of review. It lists the basic facts of the case, references the relevant regulatory and statutory provisions on which the order is based, and accepts several grounds on which the [i]mmigration [j]udge properly denied the [applications].”); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 97 (1976) (“[A]gencies are not re- quired to make findings on issues the decision of which is unneces- sary to the results they reach.”). And substantial evidence supports the finding that Barrera-Castillo did not establish that any past harm was or any feared harm would be on account of his member- ship in a particular social group or a political opinion. Because the Board agreed with the immigration judge on this finding, we re- view both decisions. See Hasan-Nayem, 55 F.4th at 842. “To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove either past persecution ‘on account of’ a statutorily protected ground or a well-founded fear that a protected ground will cause future per- secution.” Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 2021). “To be eligible for withholding of removal, an ap- plicant must prove that it is more likely than not that []he will be persecuted or tortured because of a protected ground if returned to h[is] home country.” Id. “Both standards contain a causal ele- ment known as the nexus requirement.” Id. “An applicant must es- tablish that a protected ground ‘was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. USCA11 Case: 25-11161 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2025 Page: 4 of 5 4 Opinion of the Court 25-11161 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). The protected ground cannot be “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Board based its denial of asylum and withholding of re- moval solely on Barrera-Castillo’s failure to satisfy the nexus re- quirement. He invoked the protected grounds of “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion” and argued that he was persecuted and feared persecution on those bases. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). He defined his particular social group as “former captains of youth soccer teams in El Salvador” and stated that members of the Mara Salvatrucha had beaten and assaulted him after he expressed a political opinion against the gang. Substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board. The record does not compel a finding that any persecution Barrera-Cas- tillo suffered or fears occurred “because of” his status as a captain of a youth soccer team or because he expressed a political opinion. See Sanchez-Castro, 998 F.3d at 1286. Instead, the record establishes that members of the gang “were motivated by nothing more than the desire to further their criminal enterprise.” Barrera-Castillo tes- tified that “he was taking [his] friends out of being only just one step away from being in [the] Maras,” and he answered “no” when asked whether there was any other reason gang members attacked him. He also testified that the reason gang members told his grand- mother that they wanted to kill him was because he “had been tak- ing [his] friends out of the gang.” None of the evidence Bar- rera-Castillo submitted suggests that the Mara Salvatrucha target, USCA11 Case: 25-11161 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2025 Page: 5 of 5 25-11161 Opinion of the Court 5 threaten, attack, or have any animus toward captains of youth soc- cer teams in El Salvador or that the Mara Salvatrucha targeted Bar- rera-Castillo because of a political opinion, actual or imputed. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (“An asy- lum applicant may prevail on a theory of imputed political opinion if he shows that the persecutor falsely attributed an opinion to him, and then persecuted him because of that mistaken belief about his views.” (alterations adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Barrera-Castillo’s remaining arguments—that the Board ap- plied a higher standard of proof to his request for asylum and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because of a defective notice to ap- pear—also fail. The Board denied asylum and withholding of re- moval because Barrera-Castillo failed to satisfy the shared nexus re- quirement for each form of relief. See Sanchez-Castro, 998 F.3d at 1286. And Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019), forecloses his jurisdictional challenge. We DENY the petition for review.