FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 73 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -3 77 -6 63 GUILLERMO DONALD ALVAREZ PERALT A, DORIS SUSY ARM IJ OS PARRALES, SUSY REBECA ALVAREZ ARMIJ OS, ISRAEL GUILLERMO ALVAREZ ARMIJOS , SARA GENEEVE E ALVAREZ ARMIJ OS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st11 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Gui ll erm o Do na ldAlv arez Pera lt a (Al va rez) , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Ecu ad or , see ks rev ie w of t he fin al ord er o f th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (BIA) a ffi rm in g t he Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (IJ ) de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (I NA) § 2 08 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a), withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r INA § 2 41 (b )(3 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 ), an d re li ef un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (C AT), 8 C.F.R . § 2 08 .16 . 1 Alv arez , hi s wi fe, an d t he ir t hr ee ch il dr enarri ve d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s i n 20 04 an d re m ai ne d b ey on d t he ex pi rat io n o f th ei r vi sa s. At t ha t t im e, Alv arez fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f cl ai m in g th athe ha d b een pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n a fte r he op po se d th e Co lo m

bi angu eri ll a g ro up th e Arm edRev ol ut io nary Fo rces of C ol om

bi a (FARC ). In h is ap pl ic at io n, Al va rez e xp la in edth athe work edas am erch an t

2 m ari ne on th e sh ip Esco rp io , whi ch tra ve le d fr om Ecua do r to Co lo m

bi a an d Mex ic o. Whil e em

pl oyed o n t he sh ip , he l earn edth atFARC was us in g the ve ss el to sm ug gl e co cai ne an d weapo ns . Alv arez di d n otrep ort wh athe kn ew fo r fear th atFARC wo ul d h arm

hi m or h is fam il y . Alvare z’s wife and c hildren ar e derivative bene ficiaries of his asylum application. 1 Be causeAlvare z filed his application before May 2005, the REAL

I D Act doe s not 2 apply to it. 2Nev erthe le ss , in20 03 , a m ancla im in g t o b e a U.S. DEA agen t v is it ed

Alv arez to di sc us s t he il le ga l ac ti vi ti es on th e Esc or pi o. Al va rez r efu se d t o co op erat e an d b el ie ve d t ha t the m anwas a ctua ll y a FARC g ue ril la . After t he vi si t, Alv arez rece iv edth reat en in g p ho ne cal ls fro m FARC b eg in ni ng inJan uary 20 04 . As a re su lt , Alv arez qu ithi s jo b a ndcam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Afte r hi s arriv al , cus to m s o ffi ci al s co nduc te d acred ib le fearin te rv ie w in whi chAlv arez st at edth e cal ls be ga n i n Oct ob er 2 00 3. He al so de sc rib edan in ci de ntth atoc cu rredinMex ic o i n Au gu st20 03 th athe ha d n otin cl ud edinhi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. Acco rd in g t o Al va rez, dur in g ast op inMex ic o, h e o bs erv ed ab ou t fi ve m endi se m

ba rk in g wi th su it cas es . He un su cces sf ul ly call edforth e crew t o s to p t he m en . Afterward s, the crew treat edhi m with a ni m os it y

an d h e le arn edth atth e sh ip was c on tro ll edby FARC. In20 07 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su edAlv arez an d h is fam il y no ti ces to ap pe ar, ch arg in g t he m as r em ov ab le . At th e rem ov al he ari ng , Alv arez subm it te d asupp le m en ta l s ta te m en t i n wh ic h h e d es cri be d t he in ci de ntin Mex ic o a s t wo s to waway s wi th su it cas es di se m ba rk in g andin di cat edth atth is oc cu rredinMarc h 2 00 3. He al so in cl ud edanin ci de ntinDecem be r 20 03 durin g whi cha m anpo in te d agu n a t h is car wh il e h e was dri vi ng ho m e fro m ch ur ch . In ad di ti on , Alv arez subm it te d alet te r fro m hi s s is te r, st at in g t ha t i n S ep te m be r 20 09 3on e o f he r br othe rs to ldhe r th ata Co lo m bi anna ti on al ha d warne d h im th at Alv arez sh ou ldno t re turnto Ecua do r be cau se Alv arez ha d b etrayed th e st owa way s on th e Esc or

pi o. Al va rez’s m ot he r al so subm it te d alet te r de sc rib in g t hr ee en co un te rs : Fi rs t, i n 2 00 5, a m ancam e lo ok in g fo r Alv arez ; i n 2 00 8, s om e Co lo m bi an s ca m e to he r ho m e as ki ng when Alv arez wou ldreturn fr om Sp ai n; an d in 20 09 , two y ou ng m encam e to he r wit h am es sa ge fro m FARC tha t the y

were ta ki ng rev en ge on in fo rm ers . Inhi s o wn t es ti m on y

at t he rem ov al he ari ng , Alv arez st at edth athi s p aren ts an d s ev ensi bl in gs co nt in ue d t o l iv e in Ecua do r. He th ende sc rib edth e in ci de ntin Mex ic o i n M arch 20 03 , exp la in in g t ha t h e sa w two st owa way s ca rry in g l arg e b ag s th atco nt ai ne d d ru gs . He tri edto ale rt t he crew an d t he cap ta in bu t the m en di sapp eare d. InOcto be r 20 03 , th e p ur po rte d DEA ag en t cam e to hi s h om e b uthe refu se d t o c oo pe rat e. Then , inDecem be r 20 03 , a m anwith agu n s te pp edinfro nt of hi s ca r ata tr affi c li gh t. He b el ie ve d t hi s i nc id en t was rel at edto th e ev en ts on th e Esc or pi o. He fu rth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e rec ei ve d ath reat en in g p ho ne cal l fr om FARC i n J anua ry

20 04 warn in g h im

to ke ep hi s m ou th sh ut . Fin al ly, Alv arez de sc rib edanin ci de ntth atoc curredaft er h e le ft h is job ; Al va rez anda fri en d wer e at te nd in g arel ig io us m eet in g wh ena car c ro ss edinfro ntof t he m an d fi redtwo sh ot s. Whenask edwhy he ha d n otm en ti on edth is in ci de ntearl ie r, Alv arez st at ed 4th athe ha d b utdi d n otkn ow wh y itwas n otwrit te n d own . The IJ d en ie d re li ef, s ta ti ng th athe ha d “ co nc ern s” ab ou t Al va rez’s cred ib il it y . The IJ no te d t he va rio us in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenAlv arez ’s ap pl ic at io n, cr ed ib le fearin te rv ie w, andtes ti m on y , andex pl ai ne d t ha t the se in co ns is te nc ie s wer e m at eri al an d wen t t o t he he artof Al va rez’s cl ai m s. Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e IJ co nc lu de d t ha t Al va rez was em be ll is hi ng hi s t es ti m on y

inanatt em

ptto bo ls te r hi s cl ai m s. Thus th e IJ co nc lu de d t ha t Al va rez’s cr ed ib il it y was u nd erm in edby the in co ns is te nc ie s an d om is si on s an d Al va rez f

ai le d t o p ro vi de cred ib le tes ti m on y . Nev erthe le ss , th e IJ fou ndth atev enif Al va rez was cred ib le , he h adfai le d t o sh ow p as t p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n t he in ci de nt s h e d es cri be d b ecau se th ere was no ne xu s b etweenth e ev en ts an d a ny pro te ct edgro un d. Al va rez app eal edto th e BIA, whi chaffi rm edth e IJ ’s ord er o f rem ov al . The BI A fou ndth atth e IJ ha d co ns id eredall th e ev id en ce, tha t the IJ m ad e anex pl ic itadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g th atwas s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d, an d t ha t the IJ p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atAlv arez ha d n otest ab li sh edpa stpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Th e BIA fu rth er fo un d tha t Al varez h adno t s ho wn tha t h e h ada well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d b ecau se th e fai lu re t o c oo pe rat e wit h gu eri ll as di d n otco ns ti tu te anim pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n. 5Inhi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w, Alv arez arg ue s t ha t the BIA erre d i n a ffi rm in g t he

IJ ’s cred ib il it y

fin di ng be cau se th e IJ was n otexpl ic itan d fa il edto gi ve ad equa te co ns id erat io n t o Al va rez’s ex pl an at io n fo r an y in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenhi s ap pl ic at io n a ndhi s t es ti m on y be fo re the IJ. Al va rez a ls o a rg ue s t ha t h e was pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f im pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n b y FARC, b ecau se th ey as su m edth athe ha d re po rte d t he ir d ru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it ie s an d t ha t h e was act in g a ga in stth em . 3 Whe n t he BIA is su es it s o wn o pi ni on , we rev ie w on ly the de ci si on of t he BIA, ex cep t t o t he ex te ntth atitap pr ov es or a do pt s t he IJ’s o pi ni on . Lo pe z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 50 4 F .3d13 41 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e BIA o r IJ ’s leg al de te rm in at io ns an d app ly the subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t t o a ll factua l d et erm in at io ns . Mej ia v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 49 8 F .3d12 53 , 12 56 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Thu s, we wi ll affi rm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y

We reviewour subject- matter jurisdiction de novo . Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y 3 Gen. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim ra ised in a petition for re view unless the pe titioner has exhausted his administrative reme dies with respe ct there to. Id. (citing8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)) . Additionally , issues not briefe d on appea l are deeme d abandone d. Sepulve da v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005). In this case, we c onclude that Alva

rez has aba

ndoned his claims for w ithholding of re moval or CAT re lief beca use he f ailed to ra ise them in his brief. F urthermor e, Alvar ez did not raise these c laims in his notice of appe al to the B IA, so he fa iled to exhaust them in his administrative appea l. Alvare z also failed to administratively exhaust one argument that he now a ttempts to raise on appea l - that the I J failed to c onsider his asser ted explanations for the omissions and discrepa ncies in his testimony . Thus, we lac k jurisdiction to consider this issue as well. 6reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a

who le . Id. In o rd er t o c on cl ud e th e BIA’s d eci si on sh ou ldbe rev ers ed , we m us t fin d t ha t the reco rdno t o nl y supp orts th e co nc lu si on , bu t co m pe ls it . Ade

fe mi v. Ash cr of t , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). An al ie n wh o a rri ve s i n, o r is pre se ntin , th e Uni te d S ta te s m ay ap pl y for as y lu m . 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 1) . The U.S. Att orne y Gene ral or S ecre ta ry

of t he Dep artm en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t as y lu m if t he ali enm eet s th e INA’s de fin it io n o f a “ refu ge e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 ). The INA d efi ne s a

“ refu ge e” as : an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s na ti on al it y

. . . an d wh o i s u nabl e o r un wil li ng to return t o, an d i s un ab le or u nwi ll in g t o a va il hi m se lf . . . of th e p ro te ct io n o f, th at co un try becaus e o f pe rs ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f . . . pol it ic al op in io n. 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The st atut es go ve rn in g a sylum pro te ctno t o nl y ag ai ns t p ers ecu ti on by gov ern m en t fo rces , bu t al so ag ai ns t p ers ecu ti on by no n- go ve rn m en ta l g ro up s tha t the go ve rn m en t ca nn otco nt ro l, i nc lu di ng pa ram il it ary orgu eri ll a fo rces . Rui z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 57 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Bu t ev eninth os e cas es , th e p ol it ic al op in io n a t i ss ue is th e v ic ti m ’s, no t the pe rs ecu to r’s. Id. at 1 25 7- 58 . Evid en ce o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on th atis co ns is te ntwith e it he r act 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 7co op erat e wit h g ue ril la s, o r th atm erel y sh ows th ata pe rs onha s b een th e v ic ti m of cri m in al 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 pr ot ect edgro un d. Id. at 1 25 8; se e a ls o S an ch ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 39 2 F .3d43 4, 43 6, 4 38 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th atha ras sm en t b y th e FARC forrefu si ng to co op erat e wit h t he ir d em an ds form on ey di d n otest ab li sha ne xu s t o ast atut or il y pr ot ect edgro un d) . The asylu m

ap pl ic an t h as th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t he “ refu ge e” s ta tu s. Mej ia , 49 8 F .3dat 1 25 6; 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (a). In ord er t o c arry thi s b ur de n, the ap pl ic an t m us t, wi th sp eci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce, es tabl is h (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a s ta tu to ril y

pro te ct edgro un d o r (2 ) a wel l-f ou nd edfearof f

utur e pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Meji a , 49 8 F .3dat 1 25 6; 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (b ). The IJ m us t m ak e a cl ean de te rm in at io n o f cre di bi li ty, su ch th atth e rev ie win g c ou rt i s n ot“ le ft i n the da rk ” as to whet he r th e IJ be li ev es th e as y lu m se ek er’s t es ti m on y . Y

an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . An im

pl ic itfin di ng th atth e te st im on y is no t cr ed ib le is no t su ffi ci en t. Id. Inth is cas e, th e rec or d s ho ws tha t the adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s

8supp orte d b y th e rec or d. There were n um ero us in co ns is te nc ie s an d o m is si on s

4 be twee n Al va rez’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, cr ed ib le fearin te rv ie w, andtes ti m on y at hi s re m ov al he ari ng . Se e Ch en v. U.S Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thes e in co ns is te nc ie s an d o m is si on s, wh ic h wer e m at eri al an d wen t t o t he he artof Al va rez’s cl ai m s o f pe rs ecu ti on , were s uf fic ie ntforth e IJ to co nc lu de th at Alv arez was n otcred ib le . Fu rth erm or e, ba se d o n t hi s re co rd , eve n i f we were t o c on si de r Alv arez ’s te st im on y cred ib le , we are n otco m pe ll edto co nc lu de th atAlv arez was p ers ecu te d on th e b as is of a n i m

pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n. In st ead , th e rec or d s ho ws tha t h e was em pl oyed o n ash ip do in g i ll eg al bu si ne ss with F ARC, an d tha t h e was th reat en ed aft er h e b ecame a ris k t o t he il le ga l o pe rat io ns . Se e Sa nc he z , 39 2 F .3dat 4 36 , 43 8. Acco rd in gl y , eve n i f Alv arez ’s tes ti m on y is ful ly credi te d, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n tha t h e fai le d t o d em on st rat e a n ex us be twee n the th reat s an d apro te ct edgro un d fo r as y lu m . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, DENIED I N PART.

The I J made a

clea r and e x plicit adverse cre dibility findingand re iterate d that finding 4 throughout his analy sis. The BIA then squar ely denied r elief on that basis. In his notice of appea l to the BIA, Alvar ez rec ognized that the I J had made an adve rse c redibility deter mination. Thus, his challeng e to the I J ’s cr edibility findingis without m erit. 9