FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 13658 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 96- 289- 561 J E S U S J U L I O R O D R I G U E Z , P e titio n e r , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 16, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The I NS was abolished on Ma rch 1, 2003, a

nd replaced with the Depar tment of 1 Homeland Security

(“D HS”). SeeHomeland Security Act, Pub.L .No. 107-296 (N ov. 25, 2002), 116 Stat. 2135. This case, however, w as initiated while the I NS was still in ex istence. Th ere f o re , w ere f

er t o th eIN S rath er

th anth eD H S a s th ere l e v antag en c y. Rodrigue z also ini tially

applied for

withholding of removal under the United Nations 2 Conventi on

Ag ains t T or

tureand Other C rue l, I

nhuma n, or De gradingTre atment o r P unishment, 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( c ) , b uth el at er w i th drewth ata

p p l i c ati o nb e f

o reth eIJ. 2 Jesu s Ju l i o R o d ri g u ez seek s rev i ew o f th e B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “B I A ” ) a f

f irm a n c e o f

th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n s f

o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16. R odr i gue z a r gue s on appe a l tha the e s t abl i s he d hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al throu gh hi s t es t i m on y and do cum ent ary supp ortthathe suff

er ed pers ec ut i on i n C ol om bi a on accountof hi s pol i t i ca l opi ni on. F orthe r e a s ons s e tf or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny R odr i gue z ’ s pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. R odr i gue z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s on F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 a s an o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito rw ith a u th o r iz a tio n to r e m a in u n til A ug ust13 , 20 02 . R od ri gu ez re m ai ned p as thi s autho ri ze d d at e a nd the form er Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) i ss ued h i m a not i ce t o app ea r, 1 c h a r g i n g h i m w i th r e mo v ab i l i ty p u r s u a n tt o I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) , 8 U . S. C. § 1227( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . I n F e brua ry 2003, R odr i gue z f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al w i th the IN S . (I d. at22 3-34 ). 2 A tR o d ri g u ez’ s rem o v al h eari n g b efo re th e IJ, h e t est i fi ed th ath e w as a3

me mb e ro f

th e Co l o mb i a n l i b e r a l p a r ty a n d s u p p o r t e d th e c a mp a i g n o f N o e mi S a ni n f orpr e s i de nt . A s pa r tof hi s m e m be r s hi p, R odr i gue z pa s s e d outf l i e r s a nd d r o v e h is c a rw ith m o u n te d lo u d s p e a k e r s o n to p o f it. R o d r ig u e z s ta te d th a t h is p r o b le m s in C o lo m b iaa n d w ith th e F A R C b e g a n in 1 9 9 8 w h e n th e F A R C c a m e to h is f a rm a n d r e q u e s te d a n 8 0 m illio n p e s o s w a rta x , w h ic h R o d r ig u e z n e v e rp a id . R o d r ig u e z r e p o r te d th e in c id e n t to th e p o lic e , w h o in s tru c te d h im to in s ta ll te le p h o n e s a t h is f

a rm a n d c ity ap a r tm e n t. Ro d r i g u e z f

u r th e rt e s t i f

i e d th a t , i n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 1 , me mb e r s o f th e FA RC ca m e t o h i s s ho p and as ked h i m t o h i de bo xes f or them i n h i s s ho p. R od ri gu ez de c l i ne d t o s t or e the boxe s . T he r e a f t e r , R odr i gue z be ga n r e c e i vi ng thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s f

r om the F A R C , i n w hi c h the F A R C t ol d R odr i gue z tha the w a s not c oope r a t i ng w i th the m , tha the w a s the i re ne m y a nd aw a robj e c t or , a nd tha the w oul d be ki l l e d be c a us e he ha d w a rne d the pol i c e . R odr i gue z t e s t i f i e d tha the r e c e i ve d appr oxi m a t e l y tw o orthr e e c a l l s pe rda y f r om J a nua ry unt i l M a y orJ une 20 01 . In M ay20 01 , m em bers of the F A R C fol l ow ed hi m i n h i s c arand caused hi m t o dr i ve i nt o apothol e a nd f l i p hi s c a rove r . T he r e a f t e r , R odr i gue z l e f

tf orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s , butr e turne d t o C ol om bi ai n D e c e m be r2001 be c a us e he thoughtthe si tuat i on had cal m ed. In Ja nu ary 200 2, m em bers of the F A R C agai n fol l ow ed R o d r ig u e z in h is c a r . R o d r ig u e z b e lie v e d th a t th e p e o p le f o llo w in g h im w a n te d to ki l l hi m be c a us e he ne ve rc oope r a t e d w i th the m . R odr i gue z a l s o s t a t e d tha the4

ca m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es , ra ther than m ov i ng t o ano ther C ol om bi an ci ty, because a m ove t o a nothe rc i ty w oul d ha ve be e n di f f i c ul tf orhi m a s he di d notknow a ny one in a n o th e rc ity . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , R od ri gu ez t es t i fi ed thathi s m ov e t o the U ni t ed S t at es w as ea si erbecause he has fa m i l y her e. H e f urther s t at ed thathi s w i fe and chi l dren r e m a in in C o lo m b iaa n d th e y h a v e n o t e x p e r ie n c e d a n y p r o b le m s s in c e h e le f t. W i th regard t o the 80 m i l l i on peso w art ax thatthe F A R C re qu es t ed, R od ri gu ez st at ed thatthe F A R C dem anded a w art ax fr om “ everybod y. ” T he I J de ni e d R odr i gue z ’ s appl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al and o rder ed R od ri gu ez re m ov ed t o C ol om bi a. In an oral deci si on , the IJ f o u n d th a t R o d r ig u e z ’s te s tim o n y w a s “v a g u e , g e n e r a l, a n d la c k e d in s p e c if ic de t a i l . ” T he I J not e d tha tR odr i gue z di d noti ndi c a t e w he r e orhow of t e n he part i ci pat ed i n act i vi t i es i n sup po rtof S ani n’ s c am pai gn or any other pol i t i ca l a c t i vi t i e s , orw he the rhe he l d a ny pos i t i ons w i th the l i be r a l pa r ty , of w hi c h he c l a i m e d he w a s am e m be r . T he I J f ur the rf ound tha tR odr i gue z di d notpr ovi de de t a i l s r e ga r di ng the i nc i de ntw he r e the F A R C s t oppe d hi m on the r oa d i n 1998 a nd r e que s t e d the w a rt a x, s pe c i f i c a l l y , w he the rR odr i gue z w a s s t oppe d i n a r oa dbl oc k a l ong w i th othe rpe opl e orw he the rhe ha d be e n s i ngl e d outby the F A R C . T he I J a l s o f

ound tha tR odr i gue z pr ovi de d f e w de t a i l s of

the i nc i de nt concerni ng the st orage of the F A R C ’ s box es or the tw o i nst ance s w here R od ri gu ez5

w a s f o llo w e d b y F A R C m e m b e r s in a n au to m o b ile . A s to R o d r ig u e z ’s a s s e r tio n th a t th e F A R C a s k e d h im a n d e v e ry o n e e ls e in hi s a r e at o pa y the w a rt a x, the I J f ound tha tnothi ng i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t e d tha tthe F A R C ’ s de m a nd w a s t i e d t o a ny of the f i ve e num e r a t e d c a t e gor i e s of e l i gi bi l i ty f

or a s y l um . T he I J m a de the s a m e f i ndi ng w i th r e ga r d t o the F A R C ’ s de m a nd f or R od ri gu ez t o st ore thei r box es i n h i s s ho p. T he IJal so no t ed thatR od ri gu ez ’ s w i fe and chi l dren remai ned i n C ol om bi a w i tho uti nci dentsi nce he ca m e t o the U ni t ed S t a t e s , a nd tha tR odr i gue z di d nota tt e m ptt o r e l oc a t e w i thi n C ol om bi abe c a us e he di d n otkn ow anyone i n any other l ocat i on . T he IJthu s c on cl ud ed thatR od ri gu ez f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha the ha d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i n C ol om bi aon ac coun tof on e of the fi ve enum er at ed fa ct ors f or as yl um . T he IJal so concl ud ed th a t, b e c a u s e R o d r ig u e z d id n o t m e e t th e h ig h e rb u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g e lig ib ility f o ra s y lu m , h e c o u ld n o t e s tab lis h h is e lig ib ility f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. R o d r ig u e z ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B I A , a r g u in g th a t th e I J e rr e d in fin d in g th at (1 ) R o d rig u ez fa il ed to es tab li sh elig ib il ity f o r a sy lu m ; (2 ) R o d rig u ez ’s t e s t i m ony w a s va gue ; a nd ( 3) r e l oc a t i on w i thi n C ol om bi aw a s a n a l t e rna t i ve avai l abl e t o R od ri gu ez . In hi s bri ef before the B IA , R od ri gu ez ar gu ed thathe w as threa t ened by the F A R C for f ai l i ng t o coo pera t e w i th them , and, thu s, he w as p e r s e c u te d b a s e d u p o n h is im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . H e f u r th e ra s s e r te d th a t h is t es t i m on y w as det ai l ed and con si st entand credi bl e i n l i gh tof the coun try6

c ondi t i ons i n C ol om bi a . H e a l s o c ont e nde d tha tthe I J f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l of

the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d. H e not e d tha ti tw a s “ w i thouts urpr i s e ” tha the di d notw a nt t o not i f y the C ol om bi a n a uthor i t i e s of the i nc i de nt s w i th the F A R C be c a us e the C ol om bi an go vernm entw as un abl e t o curt ai l the F A R C ’ s vi ol ence . T he B IA a f f i rm e d w i thoutopi ni on the I J ’ s de c i s i on a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tthe I J ’ s de c i s i on const i tut ed the fi nal agency det erm i nat i on i n R od ri gu ez ’ s c as e. O n appe a l , R odr i gue z a r gue s tha tthe I J e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha thi s t e s t i m ony w a s va gue a nd l a c ke d s pe c i f i c de t a i l s s uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or a s y lu m , e s p e c ia lly c o n s id e r in g th a t th e I J d id n o t m a k e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . R o d r ig u e z a ls o m a in ta in s th a t th e I J f a ile d to c o n s id e rth e s e r io u s th r e a ts h e s u f f e r e d f r o m th e F A R C . H e a s s e r ts th a t h e w a s p e r s e c u te d b a s e d u p o n h is po l i t i ca l op i ni on because he w as a m em ber of the l i bera l party, ca m pai gn ed for that p a r ty , a n d d id n o t c o o p e r a te w ith th e F A R C . H e e x p la in s th a t h is r e f u s a l to c oope r a t e w i th the F A R C de m ons tr a t e d tha thi s a c t i ons w e r e “ t a nt a m ountt o a pol i t i c a l opi ni on, ” s pe c i f i c a l l y , tha the w a s a ga i ns tthe pol i t i c a l i nc l i na t i ons of the F A R C . H e thu s c on t ends thathe es t abl i shed pastpers ec ut i on and a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b y th e F A R C d u e to h is im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . R odr i gue z f

ur the ra r gue s tha tthe c ountry r e por t s a nd the s t a tus of gue rr i l l agr oups i n C ol om bi a s up po rthi s a ss ert i on of pers ec ut i on base d u po n an i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l o p in io n .7

A s a n in itia l m a tte r , th e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t w e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w the a r gum e nt s R odr i gue z r a i s e d i n hi s appe l l a t e br i e f be c a us e he di d not r a is e th o s e a r g u m e n ts b e f o r e th e B I A . S e e A m a y a - A r tu n d u a g av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “W e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rac la im r a i s e d i n ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w unl e s s the pe t i t i one rha s e xha us t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s w i th r e s pe c tthe r e t o” ) . H ow e ve r , r e vi e w of R odr i gue z ’ s br i e f

be f or e the B I A in d ic a te s th a t h e r a is e d th e s a m e is s u e s th a t h e n o w r a is e s o n ap p e a l. S peci fi ca l l y, R od ri gu ez ar gu ed before the B IA , as he do es before thi s C ou rt , that (1) the IJerre d i n fi nd i ng thathi s t es t i m on y w as vagu e a nd no tspec i fi c; (2) he w as threa t ened by the F A R C for f ai l i ng t o coo pera t e w i th them , and, thu s, he w as pers ec ut ed base d u po n h i s i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on ; (3) hi s t es t i m on y w as det ai l ed a nd c ons i s t e nt , a nd c r e di bl e i n l i ghtof the c ountry c ondi t i ons i n C ol om bi a ; a nd ( 4) th e I J f a ile d to c o n s id e ra ll o f

th e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . W e th u s r e ta in j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the i ss ues R od ri gu ez ra i se d i n h i s app el l at e bri ef .

“ W he n as i ngl e m e m be rof 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 tho utan op i ni on , such as here , the IJ ’ s dec i si on becom es the fi nal re m ov al order s u b je c t to r e v ie w .” R u iz v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T o the ext entthatthe IJ ’ s dec i si on w as base d o n a l egal det erm i nat i on , ou r r evi ew is d e n o v o . D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e I J ’s f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s a r e r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t,8

a n d w e “m u s t a f

f irm th e [ I J ’s ] d e c is io n if it is s u p p o r te d b y r e a s o n ab le , s u b s ta n tia l, a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” A l N a jj a rv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 83 -84 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T here fore , af i ndi ng of f a c tw i l l be r e ve r s e d “ onl y w he n the r e c or d c om pe l s ar e ve r s a l ; the m er e f ac tthatthe re cord m aysupp orta c on tra ryconcl usi on i s notenou gh t o j ust i fy a r ever sa l . . . . ” A defe m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2245 ( 2005) ; s e e a l s o 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “ the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f

i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny r e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t or w ou l d b e c om pel l ed t o con cl ud e t o the contra ry. . . ”) . T o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um , the pe t i t i one rha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng th a t h e is a“r e f

u g e e ,” w h ic h is d e f

in e d a s : any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l opi ni on 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ; s e e a ls o F o r g u e v . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 4 0 1 F . 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 6 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). If th e p et i t i o n er est ab l i sh es p ast pers ec ut i on , there i s are bu tt abl e pre sum pt i on thatthe pet i t i on erhas aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 1). H ow ever , w here the pet i t i on er9

c a nnotde m ons tr a t e pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, he m a y e s t abl i s h aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on by s how i ng tha thi s “ f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i s s ubj e c t i ve l y ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e . ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1289. “ T he s ubj e c t i ve c om pone nti s ge ne r a l l y s a t i s f i e d by the appl i c a nt ’ s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony tha the or s he ge nui ne l y f

e a r s pe r s e c ut i on. . . . I n m os tc a s e s , the obj e c t i ve pr ong c a n be f ul f i l l e d e i the rby e s t abl i s hi ng pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ortha the ors he ha s agood r e a s on to f e a rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .” I d . ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . H ow ever , the pet i t i on er ’ s pas tpers ec ut i on or w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on m ustbe on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty. S ee F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at 1286. “ I n or de rt o de m ons tr a t e as uf f i c i e ntc onne c t i on be tw e e n f utur e pe r s e c ut i on a n d th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity , a n a lie n is r e q u ir e d to p r e s e n t s p e c if ic , d e ta ile d f

a c ts s how i ng agood r e a s on t o f e a rtha the ors he w i l l be s i ngl e d outf orpe r s e c ut i on on a c c o u n t o f

s u c h ap r o te c te d a c tiv ity .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in or i gi na l ) . “ T hus , e vi de nc e tha te i the ri s c ons i s t e ntw i th a c t s of pr i va t e vi ol e nc e or th e p e titio n e r ’s f

a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w ith g u e r illa s , o rth a t m e r e ly s h o w s th a t a pe r s on ha s be e n the vi c t i m of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , doe s notc ons t i tut e e vi de nc e of p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n as ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d .” R u iz , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 8 . T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , the pet i t i on erm ustm ee t as t a nda r d m or e s tr i nge nttha n the “ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” a s y l um s t a nda r d, a nd “ s how th a t h [ is ] lif

e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld ‘m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t’ b e th r e a te n e d u p o n r e tu rn to10

h [ i s ] c o u n try b e c a u s e o f , a mo n g o th e rth i n g s , h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” H u a n g v . U . S. A tt o rn e y G e n . , 4 2 9 F. 3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g M e n d o z av . U . S. A tt’y G e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) a n d I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ) . T hus , a n appl i c a ntw ho i s unabl e t o m e e tthe s t a nda r d f or a s y l um i s a l s o unabl e t o m e e tthe m or e s tr i nge nts t a nda r d f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. H u a n g , 4 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 1 ( c itin g A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 - 9 3 ) . T he IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatR od ri gu ez di d n otsuff erpastpers ec ut i on or have a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n is s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d. R odr i gue z t e s t i f i e d tha t : ( 1) he p a r tic ip a te d in th e lib e r a l p a r ty a n d s u p p o r te d N o e m i S a n in f o rp r e s id e n t; (2) m em bers of the F A R C dem anded thathe pay aw art ax, w hi ch t ax R od ri gu ez a c know l e dge d tha tthe F A R C r e que s t e d f r om e ve ry one ; ( 3) he s oughthe l p f r om the pol i c e a f

t e rthe F A R C de m a nde d the t a x a nd the pol i c e he l pe d hi m by i nstruct i ng hi m t o i nst al l a t el epho ne; (4) m em bers of the F A R C dem anded that R odr i gue z s t or e the i rboxe s i n hi s s hop a nd R odr i gue z r e f us e d; ( 5) the r e a f

t e r , he r e c e i v e d n u m e r o u s th r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s f r o m th e F AR C ; a n d ( 6 ) d u r i n g two s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s , p e o p l e w h o m Ro d r i g u e z b e l i e v e d t o b e me mb e r s o f th e FA RC f o llo w e d h im in h is c a ra n d o n c e c a u s e d h im to c r a s h . A s the I J c orr e c t l y f

ound, R odr i gue z ’ s t e s t i m ony di d note s t abl i s h tha tthe pastpers ec ut i on he suff er ed fr om the F A R C w as on ac coun tof hi s pol i t i ca l11

opi ni on, e i the ra c tua l ori m put e d. R odr i gue z ’ s t e s t i m ony de m ons tr a t e d tha the r e f us e d t o c oope r a t e w i th the F A R C , buts uc h e vi de nc e doe s note s t abl i s h tha the w as pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . S ee R ui z, 44 0 F . 3d at 1 2 5 8 . T h i s i s esp eci al l y tru e reg ard i n g th e F A R C ’ s d em an d th atR o d ri g u ez p ay a w a rt a x, w he r e R odr i gue z a dm i tt e d tha tthe F A R C de m a nde d s uc h t a xe s f r om

“ e ve ry body . ” S i m i l a r l y , the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the f i ndi ng th a t R o d r ig u e z h a d aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is pol i t i c a l opi ni on. R odr i gue z ’ s t e s t i m ony di d note s t abl i s h as uf f i c i e ntc onne c t i on betw ee n h i s a ctual or i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on and h i s f ea r thathe w ou l d suffe r f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b e c a u s e o f th a t o p in io n . S e e F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 6 . M o r e o v e r , R o d r ig u e z a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h is w if e a n d c h ild r e n s till liv e in C o lo m b iaw ith o u t in c id e n t a n d th a t h e d id n o t a tte m p t to r e lo c a te w ith in C o lo m b ia . S e e M a z a r i e gos v. O f

f i c e of U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 2001) (e xp l ai ni ng that“ i ti s notun re as on abl e t o requi re a r ef ug ee w ho has a n i nt ernal r e s e tt l e m e nta l t e rna t i ve i n hi s ow n c ountry t o pur s ue tha topt i on be f or e s e e ki ng perm anentre se tt l em enti n the U ni t ed S t at es , or atl ea stt o est abl i sh thatsuch an o p tio n is u n a v a ilab le ” ) . T o the ext entthatR od ri gu ez ar gu es on appeal thathe al so es t abl i shed el i gi bi l i ty f

or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , thatar gu m enti s w i tho utm er i t . A s not ed abov e, the st andard for el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al i s m ore s tri ng entthan12

tha tf ora s y l um . S e e H ua ng, 429 F . 3d a t1010- 11. H e r e , R odr i gue z di d not dem on stra t e hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um because he di d n otes t abl i sh thathe suff er ed p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a d aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is pol i t i c a l opi ni on. A s s uc h, R odr i gue z a l s o c a nnotde m ons tr a t e tha thi s l i f e or f r e e d o m w o u ld m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t b e th r e a te n e d u p o n h is r e tu rn to C o lo m b ia because of hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . S ee H uang , 42 9 F . 3d at10 11 (e xp l ai ni ng thatan appl i c a ntw ho i s unabl e t o m e e tthe s t a nda r d f ora s y l um i s a l s o unabl e t o m e e tthe m ore s tri ng entst andard for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al ). F ora l l the f

or e goi ng r e a s ons , the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tR odr i gue z di d not e s tab lis h h is e lig ib ility f o ra s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l o n a c c o u n t o f

h is p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n i s su p p o rt ed b y su b st an t i al ev i d en ce i n th e reco rd . A cco rd i n g l y, h is p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w is DE NI E D.