FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 11 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1709 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ A ge nc y N os. A 95- 885- 357 A 95- 885- 358 PAOLA LORIS TRUJILLO J ABBA, YAMAL SAID EL-HAGE AHMED, SAID GUILLERMO EL-HAGE T RUJ ILLO, TANIA MARGARITA TRUJI LLO, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 11, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:J abba inc luded her hu s b an d an d s o n as derivatives in her a sylum application; so our decision 1 about J abba a lso applies to her husband and son. Trujillo filed an asy lum application separ ate f rom J abba. B ut their remova l proce eding s we re consolidated be cause their asy lum applications were ba se d o n th e same fa c ts. 2 Inthi s c onso lid at ed

c as e, P ao lo L or is T ru

j ill o Ja bba( “ Ja bba ”) , he r husb an d Yam al Said E l-Ha ge Ahm ed, their son Said Guillerm o El-H age T ruj illo, and her sister Tania Magarita T ruj illo (“ Tr ujillo”), natives and citizens of Colom bia, 1 pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof

the a dopt ionand a ff

irm an ce by

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion Appe al s ( “ BI A ”) of

the de ci sio n of

the I m m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”) . T he de ci sio n de nie d a sy lum , w ith hol din g of r em ova l, and r el ie f unde r the U nit ed N at ion s Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, I nhum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”) . N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e de ny the pe tit ion . W e re vie wthe de ci sio ns o f the I J and the BI A in thi s c as e. S ee A l N aj j ar v. As h cr o ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n g th at we re v i ew th e B IA ’s de ci sio n; b ut “ [i ] nsof

ar a s th e [B IA ] a dopt s th e IJ ’ s r ea soni ng, w e w ill r ev ie wthe IJ ’ s de ci sio n a s w el l” ). A n I J’ s f ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is not

e nti tle d to as y lum “ m ust be uph el d if

it is supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . ” Ma zari eg os v . U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . “ U nde r thi s hi ghl y defere ntial test, w e af

firm the IJ’ s decision if it is su pported byrea sonable,We have noted that “only in a ra re c ase doe s the rec ord compe l the conclusion that an a pplicant 2 fo r a sylum su ff

e re d pa st pe rs e c uti on or ha s a we ll- fo un de d f e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on .” Silv a

v. U. S. Attorney Gen., 448 F .3d 1229, 1239 (11th Cir. 2006). 3 subs tanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” F or gue v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 128 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n an d a lte ratio n om itt ed ). “ T o r ev er se the I J’ s f ac t f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the record not only

suppo rts rever sal, but com pels it.” Me ndoza v. U .S . A ttorney Gen ., 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A n a lie n m ay

obt ai n a sy lum

if she is a “ re fu ge e” : a

pe rs on unable or unwilling to return to her country of nationality“ because of perse cution o r a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of ” a pr ote ct ed

gr ound , inc lud ing pol iti ca l op ini on and m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup. 8 U . S. C. §§ 1101 (a )( 42) (A ); 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T he re fo re , an a sy lum appl ic an t m ay

not sho w m erely that she has a political opi nion ; but sh e m ust sh ow that she w as persecuted be ca use of that op ini on. I N S v. E lia s- Z ac ar ia s, 112 S . Ct . 812 , 816 ( 1992 ). T he as y lum appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tut or

y “ re fu ge e” status w ith spe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce . A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84. 2 In their asy lum

applications, Jabba and Truj illo stated th at their father owned a f ood su pplybusin ess in Colom bia. I n 199 6, their f

ather ac cepted m oney fr om inv es tor s; and h e la te r le ar ne d th at the se inv es tor s w er e inv olv ed w iththeJabb a and Tr uji llo e xpla ine d th at th e ir

fathe r d ie d f

ro m an inte sti na l c on dit ion , whic h th e y c la im 3 wa s e xac e rb ate d b y

the str e ss o f r e c e ivi ngde ath t hr e ats. 4 Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lom bia ( “ FA RC ”) , ague ri lla

or ganiz at ion , and dr ug tra ff ic ke rs , w ho w er e en ga gin g inm one y launde ri ng. Ja

bbaand T ru

j ill o asserted that, when their f ather inform ed the investo rs that he wished to return th ei r m on ey , th e g ue ril la s an d d ru g t raff ic ke rs m ad e d eat h t hr eat s ag ai ns t h im . T he ir f athe r ev en tua lly

r et ur ne d th e inv es tor s’ m one y ; bu t he c ont inu ed to re ce ive thr eats f ro m pe opl e w ar

nin g hi m to “ re m ai n si le nt. ” A ft er the ir f athe r die d, 3

“ narco-guerilla henchm en” began to threaten Jabba and Tr ujillo and their m other w ithde ath. Ja

bbate sti fi ed

that sh e an d he r fam ily

c ont inu ed

to re ce ive thr eats be cau se th e in ve st or s d idno t wan t h er family to rep or t t he in ve st or s’ con du ct . Ja bbaand T ru

j ill o arg ue that the I J e rr ed in fi ndi ng tha t the y

ha d no t pr es en te d su ff

ic ie nt c re dib le e vid en ce to showpa st p er se cu tio n or ar ea sona

ble fear of future per secution based o n the threats that their fam ily had rece ived. T hey assert that their persec ution wa s on account of their m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup, spe ci fi ca lly pe rs ons w ho h av e w itn es se d c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty , and the ir im put ed pol iti ca l op ini on. B ut s ubst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the de te rm inatio n that Ja bbaand T ru

j ill o f ai le d to m ee t the ir

bur de n th at

the y ha d be enpe rs ec ute d, or that the y f ac ed aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, on a

pr ote ct ed

gr ound .5

Jabba and Truj illo have no t identified them selves as m em bers of a protec ted soc ia l gr oup. S ee Ca sti llo -Ari as v. U . S. A tto rn ey G en . , 446 F . 3d 1 190, 119 8 ( 11th Cir. 2006 ) (r ej ecting the claim that noncrim inal inform ants in Colo m bia are a pr ote ct ed soc ia l gr oup an d e xpl ai nin g th at “ [t ] he r isk

of pe rs ec uti on a lon e doe s no t cr eate apart ic ular soc ia l gr oup [unde r] the I N A , a s vi rt ua lly the e nti re pop ulatio n of Co lom bia is a pot en tia l su

bj ec t of pe rs ec uti on b y

the c ar te l” ). P er sons de m onstratin g pe rs ec uti on b as ed on the ir m em be rs hip in a soc ia l gr oup ar e pe opl e w i t h “as h a r e dc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u c h a s s e x , c o l o r , o r k i n s h i p t i e s , o r

i n s o me ci rc um stanc es ashare d pa st e xpe ri en ce suc h a s f orm er m ili tary le ad er shi p or

land ownership.” Id. at 1193 , 1196 (internal quotatio n and alteration om itted). I n ad dit ion , the share d c hara ct er ist ic “ m ust be one that the m em

be rs of the gr oup ei the r cannot

c hange , or

sho uld not be r equir ed

to ch an ge be ca

use it is fundam en ta l t o th ei r ind ivi dua l i de nti tie s or c onsc ie nc es . ” I d. ( int er

na l qu otatio n om itted). Ja

bba and Truj illo have no t identified them selves as m em bers of a social gr oup that m ee ts the se r equir em en ts. S ee id. a t 11 98 ( not ing that m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup “ shou ld n ot b e a ‘ catc h a ll’ f or a ll pe rs ons al le gin g pe rs ecu ti on who do no t fi t el se whe re”) . O n th e cl ai m

that Ja bbaand T ru

j ill o w er e pe rs ec ute d be ca use of the ir im puted po litical opin ion, the evidence presented shows that their alleged6

pe rs ec uti on r es ult ed

f ro m the ir f athe r’ s in vol ve m en t w ithinv es tor s c onne ct ed to the FA RC and drug traff

ickers. The record does not com pel the conclusio n that the alleged persecution that Jabba and Truj illo su ffer ed wa s because of a political o p i n i o n i mp u t e d

t o th e m. Su bst an tia l e vid en ce a lso sup ports the c onc lus ionthat Ja bbaand T ru

j ill o failed to show a w ell-founded fear of future persec ution based on a protected ground . They

have not sho wn that, upon return to Colom bia, they will be “ singl ed out” for persecution on account of a protected ground . See Sepulveda v. U .S . A tto rn ey G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 226, 123 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( “ T he appl ic an t m ust a lso establish a causal connection b etwe en the politi cal opinion and the fear ed persecution, presenting specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution on account of such an opin ion.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . T he re fo re , the e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l us to co nc lud e that Ja bbaand T ru j ill o are e lig ibl e fo r as y lum . B ec au se the y have not sa tis fi ed the le ss s tr ing en t standard f or a sy lum , w e al so d en y

the ir pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof

c la im s f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l and f

or CA T r el ie f. S ee Z he ng v . U . S. A tto rn ey G en . , 451 F. 3d 12 87, 1292 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). PETITION DENIED.