FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 07 2008 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. 07- 12733 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 95- 899- 944 A 95- 899- 945 J O H N J A I R O B E T A N C U R , M A R T H A I N E S V E L E Z S A N C H E Z , E R I K A B E T A N C U R V E L E Z , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 7, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:B e tancur alsore qu e ste d re lie f u

nder a sylum and the Unite d Natio ns Conventi on Ag ains t 1 T o rture ( “ C A T ” ) . B e t an cur d o e s n o t c h al l en g e th e d e c i s i o n th at h i s a s ylum p e ti ti o nw a s unti m e ly, or the denial of CAT re lief. Therefore, he has aba ndoned theseissues. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005) . Importantly , withholding of removal doe s not provide fo r derivativ ebene fits . Th erefo re , even if there c ord c omp e lle d w ithho lding of remov al, o nly Betancur , and not his wife or daughter, would beentitled to relief. See Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 2 John Ja i ro B et ancur, hi s w i fe M artha Ines V el ez S anchez, and h i s daugh t er E r i ka B e t a nc urV e l e z ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ the pe t i t i one r s ’ ) , a l l na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of C o lo m b ia, p etit io n th is co u rt fo r r ev iew o f th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’s (“ B IA ”) af

fi rm ance of the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) order of re m ov al . A ft era th o r o u g h r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d , w e d is m is s th e p e titio n in p a r t a n d d e n y in p a r t. I . B a c kgr ound T h e p et i t i o n ers arrived i n th e U n i t ed S t at es i n 1 9 9 9 o n n o n -i m m i g ran tv i sas, r e m a i ne d be y ond the e xpi r a t i on pe r i od, a nd w e r e i s s ue d not i c e s t o appe a rc ha r gi ng th e m w ith r e m o v ab ility u n d e rI N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . B e ta n c u r , a s le a d r e s p o n d e n t, f ile d a n ap p lic a tio n f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l in 20 02 , al l egi ng thathe had b ee n p er se cut ed by m em bers of the R evol ut i on ary A rm e d F or c e s of

C ol om bi a( “ F A R C ” ) on a c c ountof hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 1 A tthe re m ov al hear i ng , B et ancur r eport ed the fol l ow i ng di ff i cul t i es : In O ct ob er19 97 , a m em ber of F A R C ca m e t o B et ancur’ s aut o sho p and w arned B et an cu r t o cease h i s su p p o rto f th e N ew P o l i t i cal G en erat i o n o f A n t i o q u i a p arty, of w hi c h B e t a nc urw a s a m e m be r . I n A pr i l 1998, B e t a nc urr e c e i ve d thr e a t e ni ng3

phone c a l l s a f

t e rhe m a de a s pe e c h a ta l oc a l y outh s oc c e rga m e . A l though B e t a nc urs t oppe d hi s w ork w i th the pa r ty a f t e rthi s i nc i de nt , a m a n c a m e t o the s hop i n J ul y 1998 t o w e l c om e B e t a nc urt o F A R C . B e t a nc urr e por t e d thi s t o the p o lic e , w h o d id n o t in v e s tig a te . I n S e p te m b e r1 9 9 8 , a s h e a n d h is w if e w a lk e d to church, B et ancur w as att ac ked and beat en by tw o m en fr om F A R C . B et ancur w as tr e a te d a t th e a r e ah o s p ita l, h e f ile d a p o lic e r e p o r t, a n d h e w e n t to s ta y w ith h is f a the ri n a nothe rc i ty . I n A pr i l 1999, F A R C m e m be r s burne d dow n hi s a ut o s hop a n d p la c e d a th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a ll to B e ta n c u r ’s f a th e r . B e ta n c u rth e n a rr a n g e d to le a v e C o lo m b ia . D uri ng the heari ng , the go vernm enttri ed t o cl ar i fythe dat es of the po l i ce r e p o r ts s u b m itte d in s u p p o r t o f th e a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . O n e r e p o r t w a s d a te d A p r il 1997 a nd r e f

e rr e d t o abe a t i ng. B e t a nc urs t a t e d tha tthe r e w a s a m i s t a ke i n the da t e ; he ha d notf

i l e d ar e por ti n 1997 a nd he c oul d note xpl a i n w hy the 1997 r e por tm a de r e f

e r e nc e t o the 1998 be a t i ng. B e t a nc ura l s o s t a t e d tha the f i l e d a po l i ce re po rtabou tthe beat i ng i n A pri l 19 98 , bu tthen st at ed thatthe beat i ng w as i n S e pt e m be r1998. H e e xpl a i ne d tha the f i l e d tw o r e por t s i n S e pt e m be r1998, but ne i the rr e por tw a s i n the r e c or d. T he gove rnm e nta l s o que s t i one d w hy the S e p te m b e r1 9 9 8 th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a ll w a s n o t lis te d in th e a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . In supp ortof hi s app l i ca t i on , B et ancur s ub m i tt ed copi es of the po l i ce r e p o r ts , le tte r s f

r o m f r ie n d s a n d p a r ty m e m b e r s , h o s p ita l r e c o r d s , a n d th e S ta te4

D e pa r tm e nt2004 C ountry R e por t . T he pol i c e r e portda t e d S e pt e m be r11, 1998, i nv ol ved the i nci dentw i th F A R C i n B et ancur’ s s ho p i n O ct ob er19 97 i n w hi ch F A R C att em pt ed t o rec rui tB et ancur t o w ork for them . T he se cond re po rt , dat ed A p r il 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 m e n tio n e d a b e a tin g b y F A R C m e m b e r s a s B e ta n c u rw a s o n h is w ayt o chu rc h. T he ho spi t al re cords s ub m i tt ed show ed thatB et ancur w as tre at ed a nd r e l e a s e d on S e pt e m be r14, 1998 f orpa i n, brui s i ng, a nd m ul t i pl e l e s i ons

“ caused by vi ol entaggres si on . ” T h e I J d e n ie d r e lie f

, c a llin g th e c a s e “tr o u b le s o m e ” b e c a u s e th e d o c u m e n ts subm i tt ed w er e i ncon si st entw i th the t es t i m on y. A l tho ug h the IJexpres se d c onc e rn ove rB e t a nc ur ’ s c r e di bi l i ty gi ve n the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n the t e s t i m ony a nd th e s u p p o r tin g d o c u m e n ts , th e I J d id n o t m a k e a n e x p lic it a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng. T he I J the n e xpl a i ne d tha te ve n i f B e t a nc urw a s c r e di bl e , the r e w a s no w el l foun ded fearof pers ec ut i on , as F A R C w as try i ng t o rec rui tB et ancur ra ther than p un i sh hi m . T he IJno t ed thatB et ancur had l ef tC ol om bi a s i x yea rs ea rl i er , a n d th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e F A R C c o n tin u e dto lo o k f o rh im . B et ancur appeal ed t o the B IA , ar gu i ng thatthe IJerre d b y f i nd i ng he l ac ked c r e d ib ility . T h e B I A a f f irm e d , c o n c lu d in g th a t th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility det erm i nat i on w as no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous i n l i gh tof the i ncon si st enci es . T he B IA a l s o uphe l d the I J ’ s f

i ndi ng a s t o the l a c k of

e vi de nc e of

a w e l l f ounde d f e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . B e ta n c u rn o w p e titio n s th is c o u r t f o rr e v ie w .5

I I . D i s c us s i on W e r e v ie w “o n ly th e d e c is io n o f th e B I A , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” N r e kav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 408 F . 3d 1361, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’s o rI J ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n a le g a l d e te rm in a tio n , r e v ie w is d e n o v o . I d . T he IJ ’ s a nd B IA ’ s f

ac tual det erm i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e w i l l “ a f f i rm the [ I J ’ s ] de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w hol e . ” F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1283- 84 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot a t i on a nd i nt e rna l m a rks o m itte d ) . T o o bt ai n w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , an appl i ca ntm ustes t abl i sh thathi s “ l i fe orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i n tha tc ountry be c a us e of hi s r a c e , r e l i gi on, n a t i o n a l i ty , me mb e r s h i p i n ap a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ). “ T he al i en bears the bu rden of dem on stra t i ng thati ti s ‘ m ore l i k el y th an n o t ’ [] h e w i l l b e p ersecu t ed o r t o rtu red u p o n b ei n g retu rn ed t o [h i s] c ountry . ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1232 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( q u o tin g F a h im v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 2 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ) .6

A n ap p lic a n t f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l m a y s a tis f

y h is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f in ei ther of tw o w ay s. F i rs t , an al i en m ayes t abl i sh “ pastpers ec ut i on i n h i s c ou ntry ba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I f

th e ap p lic a n t c a n s h o w th a t th e p e r s e c u tio n w a s , a t le a s t in p a r t, m o tiv a te d b y a p r o te c te d g r o u n d , th e n th e ap p lic a n t c a n e s tab lis h e lig ib ility f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. T a n v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) . I f

a n a l i e n e s t abl i s he s “ pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, ” a r e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on ar i se s thathe has a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , ” a nd the bu rden then s hi f t s t o the D e pa r tm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty t o s how tha tthe c ondi t i ons i n the c o u n try h a v e c h a n g e d o rth e a lie n c o u ld a v o id a f u tu r e th r e a t th r o u g h r e lo c a tio n . M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . S ec on d, an al i en i s e nt i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al i f he e st abl i shes “ that i ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthat[ ] he w ou l d b e per se cut ed on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on up on re m ov al t o thatcoun try . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2). In co n si d eri n g a p et i t i o n er’ s cl ai m fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , th e IJ m u st d e t e rmi n e c r e d i b i l i ty i n th e s a me ma n n e ra s i n a s y l u m c a s e s . Se e 8 U . S. C. § 1231( b) ( 3) ( C ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) - ( i i i ) . T hus , t o e s t abl i s h e nt i t l e m e nt to r e lie f , th e ap p lic a n t m u s t e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n w ith “s p e c if ic a n d c r e d ib le evi dence. ” Y ang v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 41 8 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 02 (11th C i r. 20 05 ); se eUn d er th e e qui t ab l e d o ctri n e o f j u di ci ales t o p p el , a p arty i s p re v ent edfr o m“‘ as s erti n g a 2 claim in a leg al proc eedingthat i s inconsistent with a claim taken by that party

in a previous proce eding .’” B urnes v. Pemco A erople x , Inc., 291 F .3d 1282, 1 2 85 (11th Cir. 2002) (c itation omitted); see also Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McL ennan Companies, Inc., 404 F.3d 1297, 1307 n.16 (11th Cir. 2005). 7 a l s o 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b) ( “ T he t e s t i m ony of the appl i c a nt , i f

c r e di bl e , m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof [ i n a w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l c a s e ] w i thout c orr obor a t i on. ” ) . I J s m us tm a ke “ c l e a n de t e rm i na t i ons of c r e di bi l i ty . ” M e

j i av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 498 F . 3d 1253, 1257 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ; Y a ng, 418 F . 3d a t1201 ( “ T hough the I J m a de a r e f e r e nc e t o Y a ng’ s c l a i m s a s a ‘ r i di c ul ous f abr i c a t i on’ a nd s t a t e d tha the rt e s t i m ony w a s ‘ e xtr e m e l y i nc ons i s t e nta nd [ m a de ] abs ol ut e l y no se nse w hat soever , ’ w e a re no tpers uaded thatthi s w as an expl i ci tfi nd i ng that Y a n g ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le .” ) . In h i s ap p eal t o th e B IA , B et an cu r al l eg ed th atth e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty f i ndi ng w a s i n e rr or . H e now a s s e r t s tha tthe I J di d notm a ke a n ex p lic it ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng . T he go vernm entre spon ds thati n l i gh tof hi s a rgum ent s bef ore th e B I A , B e ta n c u rc a n n o t a r g u e n o w th a t th e f in d in g w a s n o t e x p lic it. W e de c l i ne t o appl y the doc tr i ne of j udi c i a l e s t oppe l a s the gove rnm e nt s ugge s t s . N e ve r the l e s s , B e t a nc urha s note xha us t e d the i s s ue of w he the rthe 2 f i n d i n g w a s e x p l i c i t , a n d i ti s n o tp r o p e r l y b e f o r e u s . Fe rn a n d e z - Be rn a l v . U . S. A tt ’ y G en . , 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 1 7 n . 1 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). M o reo v er, b ecau se B et ancur no l on ger a ss ert s thatthe IJi m prop er l y c on cl ud ed thathe l ac ked8

cred i b i l i ty, h e h as w ai v ed th i s i ssu e. S ep u l v ed a, 4 0 1 F . 3 d at1 2 2 8 . A cco rd i n g l y, w e d i sm i ss th e p et i t i o n o n th ese g ro u n d s. T h u s , th e o n ly is s u e b e f o r e th is c o u r t is w h e th e rth e I J a n d B I A p r o p e r ly d en i ed w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al . B o th th e B IA an d th e IJ d en i ed rel i ef b ecau se B e t a nc urw a s notpe r s e c ut e d on a c c ountof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound. B e c a us e B e t a nc ur ca n n o l on ger a rgue thathi s t es t i m on y w as cr edi bl e f or the re as on s di sc usse d ab o v e , w e c o n s id e rth e r e m a in in g e v id e n c e to d e te rm in e if th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls r e ve r s a l . S e e F or gue , 401 F . 3d a t1287 ( “ [ A ] n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on doe s nota l l e vi a t e the I J ’ s duty t o c ons i de rothe re vi de nc e pr oduc e d by a n a s y l um appl i c a nt . T ha ti s , the I J m us ts t i l l c ons i de ra l l e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d by the ap p lic a n t.” ) . H er e, B et ancur s ub m i tt ed the po l i ce re po rt s, m edi ca l re cords, and l ett er s fro m o th er p arty m em b ers t o su p p o rth i s cl ai m s. T h ese d o cu m en t s, h o w ev er, al so g o to th e I J ’s a n d B I A ’s c r e d ib ility c o n c e rn s b e c a u s e th e y w e r e in c o n s is te n t w ith the t es t i m on y. A s s uch, they do n otsupp ort , m uch l es s c om pel , the concl usi on that B e t a nc urs uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound ortha the m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d if h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . T h e o n ly othe re vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d w a s the S t a t e D e pa r tm e ntC ountry R e por t s . A nd al th o u g h th i s rep o rtco n fi rm s th atF A R C o ft en th reat en s i t s p o l i t i cal o p p o n en t s,9

th e r e is n o th in g in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t B e ta n c u r ’s a lle g a tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , in lig h t o f th e la c k o f

o th e re v id e n c e , w e d e n y th e p e titio n o n th is g r o u n d . DI SM I SS ED I N PART; DENI ED I N PART.