### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 18 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1617 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N os. A 95- 255- 652 A 95- 255- 602 MAR TH A C . V EL EZ -H OY OS , GUSTAVO AD OLFO ARANGO-CANO, ERIKA M. ARANGO-VELEZ, MANUELA ARANGO-VE LEZ, Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A ug us t 18, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

MarthaCe ci lia

V el ez H oy os ( Martha ), G ust av o A dol fo A rango Cano (G ustavo), E rika A rango Vele z (E rika), and Manuela A rango Vele z (Manuela) pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( BI A ’ s) dis m iss al of the ir appe al of the im m igr at ionj udge ’ s ( IJ ’ s) r em ova l or de r, f ind ing the re w as “ no cl ear e rro r in th e [IJ ’s] ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g.” Pe tit ion er s arg ue the BI A e rr ed by de ny ing the ir

appl ic at ionf

or a sy lum a nd withholdi ng of rem oval, and claim they presented substant ial evidence they suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n f

ro m the Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lom bia (FA RC) on ac count of their poli tical opinio n. P etitioners further ar gue they es ta bli she d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, be ca

use the y c la im the FA RC ha ve “ ex pli ci tly ” ind ic at ed the ir int en t t o ki ll the m

if the y r et ur n to Co lom bia . W e de ny

the ir pe tit ion . I. DISCUSSI ON

“ The B IA ’ s factual deter

m ination s are r eviewe d und er the substantial ev ide nc e te st, and this c ourt m ust a ff irm the BI A ’ s de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d by re as ona ble , sub stanti al , a nd p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s a whole. ” D -M

uhum ed v . U nit ed Sta tes A tto rne

y G en . , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 817 –18 (1 1th Ci r. 200 4) ( int er

na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Cr ed ibi lit y de te rm inatio ns likewise ar e re viewed under the substantial evid ence test. ” Id
. at 818. “ The tr ier3

of f ac t m ust de te rm ine c re dib ili ty , a nd this c ourt m ay not sub sti tut e its j udgm en t for that of the BI A w ith respect to credibility findings .” Id

. The a sy lum

applicant carr ies the burden of provin g statuto ry “ refugee” st atus an d t he reb y

est ab li sh in g a sylum

eli gi bi li ty. A l N

ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 257 F . 3d 1262 , 128 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . U nc or ro bor at ed but c re dib le te sti m ony

m ay be suf fi ci en t t o su sta in the bur de n of pr oof f or de m onstratin g e lig ibi lity f or a sy lum and withhold ing of rem oval. 8 C. F. R. §§ 20 8.13(a), 208.16(b). T he we aker an ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y , ho wev er, t he gre at er t he ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. In re Y -B- , 21 I . & N . D ec . 113 6, 113 9 ( BI A 199 8) . A n I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n a lon e m ay

be suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the de nia l of

a n a sy lum ap pl ic at io n. D-

Muhumed , 388 F . 3d a t 81 9. T he BI A sho uld pr ovi de “ co ge nt reasons for [its] cre dibil ity determ ination ,” and such reasons sho uld be “ supp orted by subst antial evidence in the record m uch like any

fac tual determ ination .” Id
. (citations and int ernal quotation s om itted). To obtain withholdi ng of rem oval und er the C onvent ion Against Torture an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Tre at m en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (C AT) im plem enting regulatio ns, a petitioner bear s the burden of establish ing he “ m ore lik el y than no t” w oul d be tor

tur ed upo n hi s r et

ur n to the pr opos ed

c ountry of re m ova l. 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 16( c) (2 ). “ T ortur e” is de fi ne d a s:4

[A ] ny a ct by w hic h se ve re pa in o r suf fe ri ng, w he the r phy sic al or m ental, is intentionallyinflicted on a person for such purpos es as obtaini ng from

him or her or a third person inform ation or a co nf es sio n, pun ish ing him

or he r fo r ana ct

he or she or athi rd pe rs on ha s c om m itt ed or is sus pe ct ed

of ha vin g c om

m itt ed , or int im idatin g or co er ci ng h im

or he r or athi rd pe rs on, or

f or a ny r ea son ba se d on dis cr im inatio n of

a ny kin d, w he n su chpa in o r suf fe ri ng i s in fl ic te d by or a t the ins tig at ionof

or w iththe c onse nt o r ac qui es ce nc e of apub lic of fic ia l o r ot he r pe rs on act in g i n a n o ffi ci al cap aci ty. 8 C.F .R. § 208.18(a)(1). “ Torture is an extrem e form of cruel and inh um an tr eatm en t and d oe s no t i nc lud e le sse r fo rm s of c ru el , inhum anor

de gr ad ing treatm ent or punis hm ent that do no t am ount to torture.” Id
. at § 208.18(a)(2). Inthe ir appe al , P et iti one rs do n ot d ir ec tly c ha lle nge the BI A ’ s a dve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n, an d c on se qu en tl y waiv e th atis su e. Sepulveda v. U nited Sta tes A tto rne

y G en . , 401 F. 3d 12 26, 1228 n .2 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (“ When an ap pe llant f

ai ls t o of fe r ar gum en t ona n is sue , that i ssu e is a bandon ed . ”) . I nst ea d, the y a rg ue the y

pr ovi de d su

bst an tia l e vid en ce e sta

bli shi ng p as t pe rs ec uti on and a
w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. T he BI A ’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing , how ev er , w as dis posi tiv e of P et iti one rs ’ c la im s. A cc or din gly , thi s C ourt c ande ny the pe tit ionba se d up on the unc ha lle nge d c re dib ili ty f ind ing . Re gard le ss, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the BI A ’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity fin di ng . See D -M

uhumed , 388 F . 3d a t 81 9. A s no te d by the BI A : ( 1) Martha te sti fi ed that he r inv olv em en t w ithagub er na tor ia l c am

pa ignbe gan in199 9, but5

la te r cl ai m ed

he r inv olv em en t be gan inJun e 2000 ; ( 2) Marthaa nd Gust av o te sti fi ed that he r ec ei ve d tw o th re at en ing te le phon e ca lls f ro m the F A RC in O ct obe r 1999 , but

Martha ’ s a sy lum

appl ic at ionstate d he r ec ei ve d tw o anony m ous thr eate nin g no te s; ( 3) Martha ’ s a ppl ic at ionstate d th ey

ne ve r fo und out

w ho atta ck ed G ust av o or

why , but she te sti fi ed

the F A RC a tta ck ed

G ust av o be ca

use of he r an d Gu st av o’s p ol it ic al act iv it ie s; (4) Mart ha an d Gu st av o t es ti fie d t ha t t wo indiv iduals attacked him

in Dec em

ber 1999, but a witness’ s affidavit indicated Gustavo was attacked by

three individu als; and (5) G ustavo test ified that the m en who attacked him

did no t steal his bicy cle, but a witness’ s affidavit stated G ust av o’ s bi cy cl e w as sto le n. Mo re ove r, a lth oughMarthastate d inhe r as y lum ap pli catio n th at

she ow ne d abou tique f

ro m S ep te m be r 1994 thr oughMay

199 7, an d w as “ se lf

-e m plo y ed , ” “ se lli ng d if

fe re nt i te m s, ” fr om

May 199 7 th ro ugh Aug us t 2 00 1, s he tes ti fie d t ha t s he own edth e b ou ti qu e u nt il sh e le ft C ol om bi a. Furthe rm or e, Martha ’ s a

ppl ic at ionli sts tw o w itn es se s a s th e ne ighbor s w ho brough t Gustavo hom e af ter he w as allegedly

attacked, but she testified it was those two witnesses and a third witness, who, acc ording to his affidavit, w itnessed the inc ide nt. T he num

be r an d ty

pe of dis cr ep an ci es sup port the BI A ’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing .6

I f a n ap p l i c a n t“i s u n ab l e t o me e tt h e w e l l
- f o u n d e df e a r s t a n d a r df

o r a s yl u m, he is ge ne ra lly

pr ec lud ed

f ro m qua lif y ing f or e ith er a sy lum or w ith hol din g of deportation .” A l N

ajj ar , 257 F . 3d a t 12 92–9 3 ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). B ec au se Petitioners failed to m eet the lowe r standard of proof to show they we re qualified fo r as y lum , the y

did not e sta bli sh the y w er e en tit le d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l,
w hic h ha s ahig he r bur de n of pr oof . T hus, the I J di d no t e rr

in de ny ing the ir re que st f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. II. CONCLUSION Petitioners failed to challenge the BIA ’ s adverse cr edibilit y finding, which was su pp or te d b y

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d d is po si ti ve of t he pe ti ti on ers ’ cl ai m s. Since Pe tition ers fa iled to m eet the lowe r standard of proof to show they we re qualified for asy lum , they also failed to m eet the standard of proof to show they
w er e en tit le d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l. A cc or din gly , w e de ny the ir pe tit ion . PETITION DENIED.