FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 99 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Doc ke t No . A08 8- 29 5- 24 5 ADAN LO PEZ RODRIGUEZ, Pet it io ne r, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ada n Lo pe z Ro dr ig ue z, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Gu at em al a p ro ceed in g p ro

se , pet it io ns forrev ie w of t he ord er o f th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) affi rm in g t he de ci si on of t he Im m ig rat io n Jud ge (“ IJ ”). The IJ’s d eci si on de ni ed withh ol di ng of r em ov al . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we d is m is s the * pe ti ti on in pa rt a ndde ny it i n p art . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on inth is cas e b ecau se th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s d eci si on . See Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (no ti ng th atwe rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on ; b ut“ [i]ns of ar as th e [BIA] ado pt s t he IJ’s re as on in g, we wi ll rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l” ). W e rev ie w de n ov o l eg al de te rm in at io ns of t he BIA. Id . Andwe rev ie w fact de te rm in at io ns un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t” wher eb y we “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s ‘supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .’ ” Ade fem i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) (enba nc ). W e “ vi ew th e reco rdev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e [BI A’ s] dec is io n a nddra w all
Rodrigue z raises no challeng e to the portions of the I J ’s and the BIA’s decisions denying relief * under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ; s o t h at i ssue is abandone d. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (1 1 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). And t o the ex tent that Rodrigue z challeng es the d en i al o f as ylum, we lack jurisdiction beca use the I J and the BIA conclude d that the asylu m application wa s time-barr ed. See Chacon-B otero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that we lack jurisdiction, under 8 U. S . C . § 1158(a) (3), to revie w an I J ’s untimeliness ruling). So, we dismiss the petition for re view on asy lum. 2reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t ha t d eci si on ”; an d we m ay rev ers e th e BIA’s factde te rm in at io n “ on ly whe n t he reco rdco m pe ls a rev ers al .” Id . at 1 02 7. To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for withh ol di ng of r em ov al , an a li enm us t s ho w “ th at hi s l ife or f

reed om wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f” a p ro te ct edgro un d, in cl ud in g ra ce o r m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . Delg ad o v . U.S. Att’y Gen ., 48 7 F .3d85 5, 8 60 -6 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . The al ie n m us t d em on st rat e th aton e of th e p ro te ct edgro un ds “ was or wi ll be at l eas t o ne cen tra l re as on forpe rs ecu ti ng th e ap pl ic an t.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (i) . An al ie n s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al “be ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t h e m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on hi s re tu rnto th e co un try in que st io n.” Delg ad o, 4 87 F.3dat 8 61 . The al ie n m ay sa ti sf y th is bu rd enby establ is hi ng eit he r (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a pr ot ect edgro un d, o r (2 ) a fu tu re thr eatto hi s l ife or f reed om on a pr ot ect edgro un d if r eturne d. Id . Ro dr ig ue z -- wh o i s o f Mayan d es cen t -- so ug htrel ie f ba se d o n h is race an d hi s m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . He all eg edth at , when he was 1 1 y ears ol d, g ue ril la s at te m pt edto recrui t h im . Whe n h e ref us ed , th e g ue ril la s b eat hi m on hi s h eadan d h is st om ach an d t hr eat en edto ha rm hi s fa m il y . Alth ou gh th e gu eri ll as ne ve r m en ti on edRo dr ig ue z’s Mayan h eri ta ge du rin g t he in ci de nt , 3Ro dr ig ue z b el ie ve d t ha t the y be athi m be cau se he was M ay an . Rod rig ue z d idno t requi re m ed ic al att en ti on as ares ul t o f th e b eat in g n ordi d h e rep ort the in ci de ntto th e p ol ic e. Altho ug h h e d idno t en co un te r th e g ue rri ll as ag ai n, Ro dr ig ue z le ft Gua te m al a fo r th e Uni te d S ta te s ab ou t a m on th lat er. The BIA d en ie d re li ef, co nc lu di ng th atRo dr ig ue z h adfai le d t o d em on st rat e ei th er p as t p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d o r a cl ear p ro babi li ty of fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Aft er re vi ew, we co nc lu de th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s co nc lu si on ; an d we a re n otco m pe ll ed to rev ers e th e BIA’s d eci si on . Fi rs t, we ag ree t ha t Ro dr ig ue z fai le d t o d em on st rat e p as t p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. No th in g e vi de nc es th atth e g ue rri ll as tar ge te d Ro dr ig ue z o n a cco un t o f hi s M ay aneth ni ci ty. Ins te ad , Rod rig ue z in di cat es th athe was be at enin ret al ia ti on forrefu si ng to joi n t he gu eri ll a o rg an iz at io n; an d s uc h ret al ia ti on do es no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Se e INS v . Elia s- Zacar ia s, 1 12 S.Ct . 81 2, 8 16 (19 92 ). Mo reo ve r, th e m is tre atm en t tha t Ro dr ig ue z d es cri be d -- anis ol at edbe at in g t ha t d idno t re qu ire m ed ic al att en ti on -- do es no t ri se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . See Djon dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 14 F.3d 11 68 , 11 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th ata m in orbe at in g d oe s n otco ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on ); S ep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (s ta ti ng th at“ ‘pers ecu ti on ’ is an 4‘extrem e co nc ep t,’ requ iri ng ‘ m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al

ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n,’ andth at‘ [m ]ere ha ras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on .’ ”). Ro dr ig ue z al so fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe m or e li ke ly tha n n otwil l b e pe rs ecu te d i f he returns to Guat em al a. Fir st , Rod rig ue z te st ifi edth athi s m ot he r an d h is fou r adul t b ro th ers st il l l iv e u nh arm edinth e reg io n o f Gua te m al a whe re h e was be at en . Suc h e vi de nc e is “pe rs ua si ve au th or it y th atanali endi d n otest ab li sh a wel l-f ou nd edfear ” o f pe rs ecu ti on an d, thu s, tha t h e d idno t s at is fy th e m or e st rin ge nt“ m or e-l ik el y -th an -n ot ” st an da rdrequi redforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Rui z v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 4 40 F.3d12 47 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ad dr es si ng th e le ss st rin ge ntst an da rdforasylu m rel ie f). Inad di ti on , alt ho ug h t he Co un try Rep orts onGuat em al a st at e th atMayans are o fte n d is cri m in at edag ai ns t, n othi ng in di cat es th atth e d is cri m in at io n ri se s t o t he lev el of p ers ecu ti on . Andto th e ex te ntth atRo dr ig ue z fea rs ge ne ral vi ol en ce o r ret al ia ti onfro m form er g ue ril la s, th atfearalo ne do es no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti onba se d o n apro te ct ed gr ou nd . See i d. at12 58 (st at in g t ha t “ ev id en ce tha t ei th er i s co ns is te ntwith a ct s o f pr iv at e v io le nc e o r th e p et it io ne r’s fai lu re t o c oo pe rat e wit h g ue ril la s, o r th at m erel y sh ows th ata pe rs on ha s b een th e v ic ti m of c riminal act iv it y , do es no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d” ). 5Bec au se Ro dr ig ue z h as no t s ho wn t ha t h e su ffer edpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t

of a pr ot ect edgro un d o r th athe m or e li ke ly than n otwil l b e p ers ecu te d i f he returns to Guat em al a, he is in el ig ib le forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al ; an d we a ffi rm th e BIA’s d eci si on . PETITION DISMIS SED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

6