Noha Ramadan v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 10-14510 (11th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-14510 JUNE 10, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK Agency No. A088-187-001 NOHA IBRAHIM MABROUK RAMADAN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 10, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Noha Ramadan, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions this Court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) affirming the immigration judge s denial of her application for withholding of removal. Ramadan alleged that she suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, namely her particular social group of being a female in the Middle East. The BIA denied Ramadan s withholding claim in part because this purported social group was too broad to be legally cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ). We express no view on that finding by the BIA because Ramadan fails to challenge it in her brief to this Court, and she has therefore abandoned any such argument. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).1 As a result, Ramadan cannot show that any past persecution she suffered or well-founded fear of persecution she may have was on account of a statutorily protected ground, as required to obtain withholding of removal. See Delgado v. U.S. Att y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 860 61 (11th Cir. 2007); INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny her petition. PETITION DENIED. 1 Ramadan has also abandoned on appeal any claim of asylum or relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.