FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11791 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A A ge nc y N os . A 95- 551- 857 & A 95- 551- 858 LI LI A PA RRA CO N TRERA S, J A I M E A L E X I S M U R I L L O H E RN A N D E Z , M O N I C A C . M U R I L L O P A R R A , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( N ove m be r16, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L i l i a P arraC on tre ra s, Ja i m e A l exi s M uri l l o, and M on i caC . M uri l l o P arra pet i t i on for r evi ew of the order of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) d e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e irr e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e d e n y th e irPetitioners also sought withholdingof removal under theI NA and relief under the 1 United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . 2 pe t i t i on. I. C ontr e r a s , M ur i l l o, a nd the i rm i norda ught e r , M ur i l l o P a rr a , a r e na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of

C ol om bi a . M ur i l l o a nd M ur i l l o P a rr a e nt e r e d thi s c ountry on M a y 19, 20 01 , as no ni m m i grantB 2 v i si t ors f or pl ea sure autho ri ze d t o st ay un t i l no l at er th an N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 . C o n treras en t ered th i s co u n try o n A u g u st3 0 , 2 0 0 1 , as a no ni m m i grantB 2 v i si t or for pl ea sure autho ri ze d t o st ay un t i l no l at erthan M ar ch 1, 20 02 . O n Jul y 18, 20 02 , the form erIm m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce i ss ued N ot i ce s t o A pp ea r c hargi ng the pet i t i on er s w i th rem ov abi l i ty bec ause they s t a y e d i n thi s c ountry l onge rtha n pe r m i tt e d i n vi ol a t i on of § 237( a ) ( 1) ( B ) of

the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . O n J ul y 29, 2002, C ontr e r a s appl i e d f ora s y l um a nd a s s e r t e d de r i va t i ve a s y l um c l a i m s on behal f of herhu sband and daug ht erpu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(3). 1 In her a sy l um appl i ca t i on and t es t i m on y bef ore the i m m i grat i on j ud ge (“ IJ ”) , C ontr e r a s a s s e r t e d tha ts he s oughta s y l um f orhe r s e l f

a nd he rf

a m i l y be c a us e s he fe ar ed thatthey w ou l d b e ki l l ed i f f orce d t o return t o C ol om bi a. S he st at ed thather fa m i l y has for m any y ea rs been i nv ol ved i n p ol i t i cs i n the m un i ci pal i ty of L a V ega, w h e r e h e rf

a m ily o w n s a c o f

f e e p la n ta tio n ( a lth o u g h p e titio n e r s liv e d in B o g o ta3

w he r e the y ope r a t e d a c of f e e s hop) . S he c l a i m e d tha the rf a the rw a s ki l l e d i n 1957 a nd tha the rbr othe rdi e d m y s t e r i ous l y i n 1987 be c a us e of the i rpol i t i c a l opi ni ons a nd a c t i vi t i e s . A nothe rbr othe rw a s f or c e d t o r e s i gn f

r om the c i ty c ounc i l i n 1999 b ecau se o f d eath th reat s. C ontr e r a s c l a i m e d tha tm e m be r s of the R e vol ut i ona ry A r m e d F or c e s of C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ” ) , a n i ns ur ge ntgue rr i l l a or ga ni z a t i on, t a r ge t e d he rbe c a us e s he c a m pa i gne d on be ha l f

of a nt i - c orrupt i on m e m be r s of the L i be r a l P a r ty . I n m i d1 9 9 7 , a g u e rr illa c o m m a n d e rin s is te d o n m e e tin g w ith C o n tr e r a s in o r d e rto in f lu e n c e h e rin v o lv e m e n t in a m a y o r a l c a m p a ig n a n d to e x to r t m o n e y f r o m h e r . A ft erw ar ds, C on tre ra s r eport ed the m ee t i ng t o the C ol om bi an arm y. In N ov em ber 1997, the gue rr i l l a c om m a nde ror de r e d a nothe rm e e t i ng w i th C ontr e r a s a nd the w i n n i n g c a n d i d a t e w h o m s h e b a c k e d . A f e w w e e k s l a t e r , th e Co l o mb i a n a r my am bu shed and k i l l ed the gu erri l l a c om m ander and anotherF A R C m em ber. C on tre ra s s t at ed thati n M ar ch 19 98 she l ea rned thatF A R C had h i re d a s s a s s i ns t o ki l l he r . A f t e rtha tt i m e C ontr e r a s r e turne d t o the f a m i l y pl a nt a t i on n ea r L a V eg a o n ly a h an d fu l o f tim es , i n clu d in g o n ce to atten d h erm o th er ’s funeral i n F ebruary20 00 w hen she w as agai n w arned abo utas sa ss i nat i on . In M ay 2 0 0 0 s h e b e g a n r e c e i v i n g th r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s a th e rh o me i n Bo g o t a f r o m a F A R C c om m a nde rw ho w a nt e d t o m e e tw i th he r , buts he f e a r e d tha the w oul d ha ve he rki dnape d. C ontr e r a s a dm i tt e d tha ts he ha d ne ve rbe e n a rr e s t e d, be a t e n,C o ntre ra s a dm i tt e d th atb o tho f

th e s ec h i l dre naren o wl i v i n gi nth i s c o untr y i l l e g al l y. 2 4 i m pri soned, or had a F A R C gu erri l l a c om e t o h erho use i n B og ot a. In 1 9 9 9 , C o n treras b ro u g h th er ad u l tso n an d d au g h t er t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. 2 C on tre ra s s ub se qu ent l y tra vel ed betw ee n C ol om bi a and thi s c ou ntry fi ve t i m es . In Ju ly 2 0 0 1 , sh e r etu rn ed to B o g o ta fo r th e las t t im e in o rd erto se ll th e f am il y’s ho use, bu tw as un abl e t o d o so. C on tre ra s s t at ed thatshe has been t ol d that m em bers of F A R C ar e s t i l l l oo ki ng for her . A ft era hea ri ng on June 17 , 20 03 , the IJ foun d C on tre ra s c re di bl e butdeni ed p e titio n e r s ’ ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m a n d o th e rr e lie f a n d o r d e r e d th e m r e m o v e d . T he IJ det erm i ned t hatC on tre ra s had no tbeen pers ec ut ed because of her pol i t i ca l op i ni on or m em bers hi p i n any soci al grou p, ra ce , re l i gi on , or nat i on al i ty a s r e q u ir e d b y th e s ta tu to ry d e f in itio n o f “r e f u g e e ” c o n ta in e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he I J f ound tha tF A R C t a r ge t e d C ontr e r a s f orr e tr i but i on b e c a u s e th e y b la m e d h e rf o rth e C o lo m b ia n a r m y ’s k illin g o f tw o o f its m e m b e r s . T he IJ al so foun d thatw hi l e F A R C had subj ec t ed C on tre ra s t o ext ort i on , she had notbe e n pe r s e c ut e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , the I J de t e r m i ne d tha tC ontr e r a s ’ f r e que nttr i ps be tw e e n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd C ol om bi a i ndi c a t e d tha ts he ha d a tt e m pt e d t o m a ke an o rd erl y d ep artu re an d w as n o ta refu g ee fl eei n g h er co u n try. O n Jul y 16, 20 03 , pet i t i on er s f i l ed a t i m el y not i ce of appeal w i th the B IA and i ncl ud ed a one-page desc ri pt i on of the “ re as on s f or appeal . ” P et i t i on er s c i t edPetitioners also filed a supplemental motion to reopen, assertingineffe ctive assistanc e 3 of c ouns e l, o n D e c e mber 2 7, 20 04 ; ho wever, they havee xpre ssly

a ba ndon e d th e ir

argumentsin support of the motion to reopen. 5 tw o s uc h r e a s ons : ( 1) T he I J e rr e d by notf i ndi ng pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on F A R C ’ s threa t s a gai nstC on tre ra s a nd her f am i l y, w hi ch w er e m ot i vat ed by her fa m i l y’ s a ss oci at i on w i th the L i bera l party; and (2) the IJ erre d b y notfi nd i ng that C o n tr e r a s ’ h a d d e m o n s tr a te d a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n if

r e m o v e d to C o lo m b ia b a s e d o n F A R C ’s v io le n c e a g a in s t o p p o s itio n s u p p o r te r s , L ib e r a l p a r ty m em bers , and C on tre ra s’ fa m i l y. A l tho ug h the B IA i ss ued a bri ef i ng sc hedu l e, p etit io n er s’ co u n se l d id n o t fil e a se p ar ate b rief. T h e B IA af firm ed th e I J’s de c i s i on, w i thoutopi ni on, on S e pt e m be r28, 2004. P e t i t i one r s f

i l e d a t i m e l y m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ron O c t obe r28, 2004. I n the 3 m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , p e titio n e r s a r g u e d th a t C o n tr e r a s h a d e s tab lis h e d a w e llfoun ded fearof pers ec ut i on base d o n h erm em bers hi p i n (1) a part i cul arsoci al gr oup s uppor t i ng the C ol om bi a n m i l i t a ry a nd ( 2) a pa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup ca m pai gn i ng agai nstcorrup tpo l i t i ci ans. C on tre ra s a l so cont ended t hatthe IJ erre d by f a i l i ng t o f

i nd a ne xus be tw e e n he r“ a nt i - c or rupt i on i de ol ogy ” a nd the thr e a t s on he rl i f e a nd tha tthe I J ha d m i s c ha r a c t e r i z e d F A R C ’ s m ot i ve a s “ r e ve nge , pur e a nd si m pl e. ” O n M ar ch 7, 20 05 , the B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o rec on si der because her cl ai m t o b e am em ber of apart i cul arsoci al grou p w as no tpartof her ori gi nal ap p ea l an d sh e h ad fa il ed to d em o n stra te an y e rr o r o f f ac t o r law in th e I J’sTo be e ligible f or asylum, an applicant must first demonstratethat he is a re fug ee. 8 4 U. S.C. § 1 15 8(b) (1 ). Th eI NAde fine s “re fug e e ”a s f oll ow s: [ A] ny p er s o nwh o i s o ut s i d e any co untry o f s u chp er s o n 's natio nality

. . . a nd wh o isun a

bleor unwi llingto re tur

n to , a nd is unable or unwilling to avail hims elf or herself of the protec tion of, that country

beca use of persecution or a we ll-founded f ear of pers e c uti on

on a c c ount o f ra c e , re lig ion , n atio nality , members hip in a par ticular social group, or political opinion . . . . I d. § 1 10 1( a)(42 )(A) . T o e sta bli shre fug e estatus , a

n a pp lic ant f or a sylum mus t pre sent spe c if

ic and credible evidence that he has e xperienced pa st persecution or that he has a well-founde d fea

r of futureperse cution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (1)–( 2); Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir. 2001). Claims for withholding of removal and CAT re lief are subjec t to a more stringent standard than thestandard f or grantingasylum. See Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1292–93, 1303–04. This section was previously numbere d 8 C.F.R. § 3.2. 5 6 de c i s i on. T he pe t i t i one r s f i l e d thi s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w on A pr i l 1, 2005. II. A s a n in it ial m atter, w e n o te th at p etit io n er s d id n o t t im ely a p p ea l th e B IA ’s S e p te m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 f

in a l o r d e ra f

f ir m in g , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e I J ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r . T hi s C our ti s the r e f

or e w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe unde r l y i ng c l a i m s f or a s y l um a nd othe rr e l i e f

. 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ( “ T he pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w m us tbe 4 f ile d n o t la te rth a n 3 0 d a y s a f te rth e d a te o f

th e f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l” ) . A cc ordi ng l y, thi s C ou rt ’ s r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the B IA ’ s M ar ch 7, 20 05 , order denyi ng pet i t i on er s’ m ot i on t o rec on si der

“ T he de c i s i on t o gr a ntorde ny a m ot i on t o r e ope n orr e c ons i de ri s w i thi n the di s c r e t i on of

the [ B I A ] . . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( a ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e vi e w the 57

B I A ’ s de ni a l of

a m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ronl y f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. A s s a ’ a d v. U . S . A tt orney G ener al , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 41 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). A nd w e have s t at ed tha t8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( a ) pr a c t i c a l l y c onf e r s “ non- r e vi e w a bl e di s c r e t i on” on the BI A . Se e A n i n v . Re n o , 1 8 8 F. 3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (a ff i rm i ng deni al of m ot i on t o reopen). “ Judi ci al re vi ew of deni al s of di sc re t i on ary re l i ef i nci dentt o d eport at i on proceedi ng s . . . i s l i m i t ed t o d et erm i ni ng ‘ w hether the r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ry orc apr i c i ous . ’ ” S e e G a r c i a - M i rv. S m i th, 766 F . 2d 1 4 7 8 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( a d d r e s s in g a m o tio n to reo p en ). M o t i o n s t o reco n si d er are d i sfav o red i n d ep o rt at i o n p ro ceed i n g s b ecau se “e v e ry d e la y w o r k s to th e a d v a n ta g e o f th e d e p o r tab le a lie n w h o w is h e s m e r e ly to r e m a in in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” S e e I N S v . D o h e r ty , 5 0 2 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 71 9, 72 4– 25 (199 2) (a dd re ss i ng a m ot i on t o reopen). A pr ope rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de rm us t“ s pe c i f y [ ] the e rr or s of

f a c torl a w i n the p r io r[ B I A ] d e c is io n a n d . . . b e s u p p o r te d b y p e r tin e n t a u th o r ity .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (b )(1 ). “ A m o t i o n t o reco n si d er assert s th atatth e t i m e o f th e [B IA ’ s] pr e vi ous de c i s i on a n e rr orw a s m a de . ” Z ha o v. U . S . D e p’ tof J us t i c e , 265 F . 3d 83, 90 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W he n the B I A r e c ons i de r s one of i t s pr i or de c i s i ons , “ i tt a ke s i t s e l f ba c k i n t i m e a nd l ooks a tthe c a s e a s though a de c i s i on ha d ne ve rbe e n e nt e r e d. ” I d.8

In thei r bri ef

t o thi s C ou rt , pet i t i on er s urge thatthei r m ot i on t o rec on si der no t ed se vera l errors of fa ctand l aw m ade by the IJ , and, i n turn, by the B IA w hen i taf fi rm ed the IJ w i tho utop i ni on . S peci fi ca l l y, pet i t i on er s c on t end t hatthe IJ m is ap p lie d th e le g a l s ta n d a r d s f o rg r a n tin g a s y lu m a n d e rr e d in d e te r m in in g th a t the y ha d note s t a bl i s he d a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i n C ol um bi a be c a us e of C o n treras’ po l i t i cal act i v i t i es. T o th e e x te n t th a t p e titio n e r s in v ite u s to r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f th e ir a s y l um c l a i m , w e de c l i ne t o do s o. O urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o the B I A ’ s de ni a l of p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e d e c is io n to a f f ir m th e I J w ith o u t o p in io n . A l though “ [ w ] he n the B I A s um m a r i l y a f f i rm s the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thouta n opi ni on, th e I J ’s d e c is io n b e c o m e s th e f in a l r e m o v a l o r d e rs u b

je c t to r e v ie w ” b y th is C o u r t, S epul veda v. U . S . A tt orney G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 30 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), pe t i t i one r s ’ appe a l of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of

the i rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de ri s nota s e c ond c ha nc e f orthe m t o a s s e r tt o thi s C our ttha tthe I J e rr e d i n de ny i ng the i rc l a i m s f or r e l i e f . I f i tw e r e , the n the j ur i s di c t i ona l ba rof 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) f orf i l i ng a l a t e pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

a f i na l r e m ova l or de rw oul d be unde r m i ne d. A cc ordi ng l y, the sol e i ss ue prop er l y bef ore thi s C ou rti s w hether the B IA ab u se d it s a d m in istrativ e d iscr etio n b y n o t rec o n sid er in g it s a ff irm an ce o f th e I J’s re m o v al o rd eran d d en ial o f r elief. A s a p ra ctical m atter, 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b )( 1 )’s r e q u ir e m e n t th a t a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rm u s t “s p e c if y [ ] th e e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w in9

th e p r io r[ B I A ] d e c is io n a n d s h a ll b e s u p p o r te d b y p e r tin e n t a u th o r ity ” is d if f ic u lt to m e e t w h e n th e p r io rd e c is io n a t is s u e is a n a f f ir m a n c e w ith o u t o p in io n . N on ethel es s, as the S eventh C i rc ui thas not ed, “ [a ] m ot i on thatm er el y r epub l i shes the r e a s ons tha tha d f

a i l e d t o c onvi nc e the tr i buna l i n the f i r s tpl a c e gi ve s the tr ib u n a l n o r e a s o n to c h a n g e its m in d .” A h m e d v . A s h c r o f t, 3 8 8 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t i n g th a ta m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r“ ‘ i s a r e q u e s tth a tth e [ B I A] r e e xa m i ne i t s de c i s i on i n l i ghtof a ddi t i ona l l e ga l a r gum e nt s , a c ha nge of l a w , or pe rhaps a n a r gum e ntora s pe c tof the c a s e w hi c h w a s ove r l ooke d’ ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed)) . P et i t i o n ers assert ed i n th ei r m o t i o n t o reco n si d er th atC o n treras w as a r e f u g e e b e c a u s e o f

h e rw e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n h e rm e m b e r s h ip i n ( 1) a s oc i a l gr oup s uppor t i ng the C ol om bi a n a r m y a nd ( 2) a gr oup of pol i t i c i a ns w or ki ng a ga i ns tc orrupt i on i n C ol om bi a n gove rnm e nt . I n de ny i ng the m ot i on, the B IA re j ec t ed thi s c l ai m because i tw as no tpartof the ori gi nal appeal and w as the r e f or e nota pr ope rba s i s f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. E ve n i f a m or e l i be r a l r e a di ng of pet i t i on er s’ re as on s f

or appeal i ncl ud ed w i th thei r not i ce of appeal t o the B IA m i ghta l l ow f

ora c onc l us i on tha tpe t i t i one r s di d i n f a c tr a i s e the i rs oc i a l gr oup ar gu m ent s, w e not e thata group i ng of i nd i vi du al s on acc ou ntof thei r pol i t i ca l o p i n i o n ( e . g . , a p o l i t i c a l p a r ty ) i s n o ta “ s o c i a l g r o u p ” a s d e f i n e d b y th e B I A, a b s e n ts o m e o th e r“ i m m u t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . ” S e e Ma tt e ro f Ac o s t a , 1 9 I . & N .10

D e c . 211, 233 ( B I A 1985) ( i nt e rpr e t i ng “ the phr a s e ‘ pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p’ t o m ea n p er se cut i on thati s di re ct ed t ow ar d an i nd i vi du al w ho i s am em ber of agrou p o f per sons al l of w ho m shar e a c o m m o n , im m u tab le c h a r a c te r is tic . . . s u c h a s s e x , c o lo r , o rk in s h ip tie s , o r. . . a shar ed pastexperi ence such as form erm i l i t ary l ea ders hi p o r l and o w ners hi p”), ove rrul e d on othe rgr ounds by M a tt e rof M ogha rr a bi , 19 I . & N . D e c . 439, 439 (B IA 1 9 8 7 ). T h u s, th e B IA d i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g p et i t i o n ers’ m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ron tha tgr ound. P e titio n e r s a ls o c la im e d in th e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth a t th e I J e rr e d in fi nd i ng thatthe threa t s on C on tre ra s’ l i fe di d n otst em fr om her pol i t i ca l ac t i vi t i es agai nstcorrup t i on . In denyi ng the m ot i on , the B IA st at ed m er el y thatpet i t i on er s “h a[ d ] n o t d em o n stra ted an y e rr o r o f f ac t o r law in th e p rio r I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s d ec isio n an d o u r a ff

irm an ce o f th at d ec isio n .” T h e I J d eter m in ed th at F A R C ’s p r im a ry m o tiv e f

o rk illin g C o n tr e r a s w a s r e v e n g e f o rth e k illin g o f

th e g u e rr illa c o m m a n d e r . T h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n ts le a d in g u p to a n d f o llo w in g th a t e v e n t c le a r ly s u p p o r t s th a td e t e r m i n a t i o n . Gi v e n o u rd e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s m o tio n to re consi der. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.