Elizabeth Lesvia Perez Roblero v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 25-12707 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12707 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ELIZABETH LESVIA PEREZ ROBLERO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-862-668 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Elizabeth Lesvia Perez Roblero, a native and citizen of Gua- temala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals USCA11 Case: 25-12707 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12707 final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her applica- tion for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). She argues that the immigration judge erred in determining that her family mem- bership was not a cognizable particular social group and that the Board should have corrected the immigration judge’s alleged error.

We deny the petition.

We will not consider Perez Roblero’s argument that the im- migration judge erred in ruling that her family membership was not a cognizable particular social group because we do not consider issues that the Board did not decide. See 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). The Board ruled that Perez Roblero failed to challenge the immigration judge’s findings that her application for asylum was untimely and that she could internally relocate to avoid future harm. Perez Roblero does not challenge those findings in her petition for re- view. Her argument that the Board erred by not addressing and correcting the immigration judge’s findings about her alleged so- cial group fails because the Board need not make findings on issues that are unnecessary to its decision. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

We DENY the petition.