FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 48 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 78 -9 10 -1 38 ENRIQUE OCTAVIO CASO-GIRALDO ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 8, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Enri qu e Oct av io Cas o- Gira ld o, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof P eru , pet it io ns forrev ie w of afin al de ci si on by the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) , whi ch de ni edCas o- Gira ld o’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r th e Imm ig rat io n an d Nat io na li ty A ct(“ INA”) § 24 5, 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5, an d d en ie d h is reque stfor 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 ). On ap pe al , Cas o- Gira ld o fi rs t ar gu es th atwe ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w hi s ch al le ng e to th e ag en cy ’s den ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Cas oGira ld o c on te nd s t ha t i n d en y in g h is ap pl ic at io n, the ag en cy erre d b y ap pl y in g a n in co rrec t l eg al st an da rdto de te rm in e whe th er h e en te redin to hi s m arri ag e in go od fai th , des pi te th e fac t tha t h e m arri eda Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen aft er the Depa rtment of Hom el an d S ecu rit y

in it ia te d re m ov al pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im . Cas o- Gira ld o al so ass ert s t ha t d efi ci en ci es indo cu m en ta ry supp ort fo r hi s ap pl ic at io n a re at tri bu tabl e to hi s p rio r co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve rep res en ta ti on . Seco nd , as t o h is withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im , Cas o- Gira ld o a rg ue s tha t the ag en cy erre d i n de nyin g h is ap pl ic at io n, b ecau se th e IJfai le d t o c on si de r whe th er h e was pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f hi s fa th er’s p ol it ic al op in io n. W e ad dr es s ea charg um en t i n turn, d en y in g t he pe ti ti on forrev ie w inpa rt
an d d is m is si ng inpa rt. I. W e rev ie w de no vo ou r subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . 2U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). “ W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to
co ns id er a cl ai m

rai se d i n ape ti ti on forrev ie w un le ss th e p et it io ne r ha s ex haus te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wi th res pe ctth eret o.” Id. (ci ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( d) (1 )). The refo re, i f anali ench al le ng es anis su e inhi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w witho utfir strai si ng th e is su e inhi s ap pe al to th e BIA, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to
co ns id er i t. See id
. The INA furth er p ro vi de s t ha t “ no co urt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w” (i) an y jud gm en t re ga rd in g t he gra nt in g o f rel ie f un de r se ct io n 11 82 (h ), 11 82 (i) , 12 29 b, 1 22 9c , or 1 25 5 o f th is ti tl e, or (ii ) an y ot he r de ci si on or a ct io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral or t he Secr et ary of

Hom el an d S ecu rit y

th e au th or it y

for whi chis sp eci fie d u nd er thi s s ub ch ap te r to be inth e d is cret io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral or t he Secr et ary of Hom el an d S ecu rit y , othe r th anth e g ran ti ng of r el ie f un de r se ct io n 1 15 8( a) o f th is ti tl e. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (B). Thus , Con gr es s s tri pp edth is Co urt o f juri sd ic ti on to
rev ie w jud gm en ts reg ard in g the gra nt in g o f rel ie f un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 5. Se e Kuc an a v . Hol de r, 55 8 U.S. --- -, 13 0 S . Ct. 8 27 , 83 7 (2 01 0)
. Howev er, u nd er § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D), no pro vi si on inth e INA “ sh al l b e co ns tru edas p recl ud in g re vi ew of co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f la w rai se d up on a pe ti ti on forrev ie w fil edwith a n app ro pr ia te co urt o f ap pe al s.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(D); see als o M art in ez v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d12 19 , 12 21 –2 2

3(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . A pet it io ne r’s ga rd en -v ari ety ch al le ng e th atanimm ig rat io n jud ge (“ IJ ”) “ ab us edhe r di sc ret io n b y fai li ng pro pe rly to we ig h t he factua l
sc en ari o . . . pre se nt ed ” d oe s n ottypic al ly rais e a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im or que st io n of law fo r pu rp os es of § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D). See Al va rez Aco st a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 52 4 F .3d11 91 , 11 96 –9 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Howev er, wh ethe r th e IJap pl ie d t he
co rrec t l eg al st an da rdis a “ le ga l que st io n” un de r th e st atut e. See i d. at11 97 & n.1 4. The INA pro vi de s the Att orne y Gene ral with t he di sc ret io n t o a dju stth e st atus of a n a li ento th atof l awfu l p erm an en t re si de ntif: “ (1 ) th e al ie n m ak es an ap pl ic at io n fo r su chad

jus tm en t, (2 ) th e al ie n i s el ig ib le to rece iv e animm ig ran t vi saan d i s ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e, an d (3 ) an imm ig ran t v is a is imm ed ia te ly avai labl e to hi m at t he ti m e h is ap pl ic at io n i s fi le d.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a). Whenanali enm arri es a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen , th e ci ti zen -s po us e m ay

fil e a Fo rm

I-1 30 Pet it io n fo r Ali enRel at iv e, whi ch , if ap pr ov ed , “pr ov id es th e ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e b en efi ci ary’ s ad jus tm en t o f st atus vi a Fo rm I-4 85 , App li cat io n t o R eg is te r Perm an en t Re si de nc e o r Adju stSta tu s.” Alv arez Acos ta , 52 4 F .3dat 1 19 4 n .6. Gen eral ly, anali enwho see ks an imm ig ran t v is a o n t he ba si s o f a m arri ag e en te redin to whi le “ adm in is tra ti ve or jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs are p en di ng reg ard in g t he ali en ’s rig htto be admit te d o r 4rem ai n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s” m ay no t h av e h is st atus ad

jus te d und er § 12 55 (a). See 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( e)(1 )– (2 ). Howev er, p ur su an t t o t he “bo nafid e m arri ag e ex cep ti on ,” th is bar to ad

jus tm en t o f st atus sh al l n otap pl y

with re sp ectto a m arri ag e if th e al ie n e st ab li sh es by cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce t o t he sat is fact io n o f th e Att orne y Gen eral th atth e m arri ag e was en te redin to ingo odfai th an d i n acco rd an ce wi th th e la ws o f th e p la ce wh ere t he m arri ag e to okpl ace an d t he m arri ag e was no t en te redin to forth e p ur po se of p ro cu rin g t he al ie n’s ad mis si on as a n i m m ig ran t . . . . Id . § 1 25 5( e)(3 ). Cas o- Gira ld o a rg ue s t ha t § 12 52 do es no t s tri p t hi s C ou rt o f juri sd ic ti on to
rev ie w th e m eri ts of t he ag en cy ’s den ia l o f hi s ad jus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, he co nt en ds th athi s p et it io n i m pl ic at es a pu rel y

leg al qu es ti on of

“ st atut ory eli gi bi li ty for ad

jus tm en t o f st atus , a m at te r rev ie wab le by the Co urts of App eal s.” Th eref

or e, arg ue s C as o- Gira ld o, thi s C ou rt h as th e au th or it y to rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n, wh ic h h e ch arac te riz es as ade ni al of h is ad jus tm en t o f st atus pe ti ti on pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (G)(i i). As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te th at§ 1 25 5( e), an d n ot§ 1 22 7( a)(2 )(G)(i i), go ve rn s C as o- Gira ld o’s ad jus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n. Whil e th e IJdi d c it e to § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(G)(i i) i n h is ora l d eci si on , th e rec or d c le arl y refl ect s tha t Cas o- Gira ld o’s p et it io n turne d upo n an e va lu at io n o f § 1 25 5( e)(3 ), th e b on a fi de

5m arri ag e ex cep ti on . Whe n C as o- Gira ld o s ou gh t ad jus tm en t o f st atus ba se d o n m arri ag e to a U.S. cit iz en , rem ov al pro ceed in gs ha d a lre ady be gu n. Th eref

or e, he
co ul d o nl y

ob ta in ad jus tm en t o f st atus if, as requi redby § 12 55 (e)( 3) , he was ab le to est ab li sh “by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e . . . tha t the m arri ag e was en te red in to ingo odfai th ,” an d n otto av oi d i m m ig rat io n l aws . Id. § 12 55 (e)( 3) ; 8 C.F.R. § 2 45 .1(c )(8 )(i ii )(F) . This co nc lu si on is co nf irmed no t o nl y

inth e BIA’s o rd er di sm is si ng Cas o- Gira ld o’s ap pe al , bu t al so inCas o- Gira ld o’s o wn b rie f be fo re the BIA. (See Br. Supp . App eal 8– 9.) Cas o- Gira ld o a rg ue s t ha t the ag en cy ap pl ie d a n i nc orrectleg al st an da rdin
ru li ng on hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . He con te nd s tha t u nd er BI A pr eced en t, the ag en cy

ou gh t t o h av e rev ie wedhi s p et it io n o nl y for“ subs ta nt ia l an d pr ob at iv e” ev id en ce, n otcle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e, th athi s m arri ag e was in go odfai th . Becau se de te rm in at io n o f th e p ro pe r le ga l s ta nd ardco ns ti tu te s a l eg al qu es ti on forth e p ur

po se s o f § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(D), we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Cas o- Gira ld o’s ar gu m en t. Cf. Al va rez Aco st a, 52 4 F .3dat 1 19 7. As di sc us se d ab ov e, Cas o- Gira ld o’s ad jus tm en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n was subjec t t o § 1 25 5( e)(3 ). The p la in lan gu ag e o f bo th th e st atut e an d the rel ev an t fe de ral

1

The one case to which Caso-Gira ldo cites to support his posit ion deals with another 1 statutory provision. As discussed above , § 1255(e) g overns Caso- Giraldo’s r equest for adjustment of status. In fac t, Caso-Giraldo noted in his own filing s befor e the B IA that 6reg ul at io ns pl aces th e b ur de n o n C as o- Gira ld o t o p ro ve by clear an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce tha t h e en te redin to hi s m arri ag e in go odfai th . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( e)(3 ); 8 C.F.R. § 24 5.1 (c)( 8) (ii i)( F). Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA ap pl ie d t he pr op er l eg al st an da rdwhen itde ni edCas o- Gira ld o’s p et it io n. In so far a s C as o- Gira ld o c ha ll en ge s the ag en cy ’s app li cat io n o f th e fac ts to th e st an da rdsetou t b y

§ 1 25 5( e)(3 ), § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (i) cle arl y strip s thi s C ou rt o f juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Ca so -Gir al do ’s arg um en t. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (B)( i) (“ [N]o co urt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w . . . an y jud gm en t re gard in g the gr an ti ng of r el ie f un de r se ct io n . . . 12 55 of t hi s t it le
. . . .”); see als o Kuc an a, 55 8 U.S. at -- --, 1 30 S. Ct. at83 7 (e xp la in in g t ha t “ cl au se (i) enum erat [es th e] adm in is tra ti ve jud gm en ts th atare i ns ul at edfro m jud ic ia l re vi ew,” an d t ha t Co ng res s al so “ ad de d i n c laus e (i i) acat ch al l p ro vi si onco ve rin g ‘an y ot he r de ci si on . . . th e au th or it y forwhi chis sp eci fie d u nd er thi s s ub ch ap te r’” (qu ot in g 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (ii )). Fi na ll y , Cas o- Gira ld o c la im s tha t h is att orne y ha d ane ga ti ve effe cton hi s ab il it y to pre se ntev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s ad jus tm en t o f st atus pe ti ti on . Cas oGira ld o h ada ne w att orne y whenhe ap pe aredbe fo re the BIA, an d h e h adth e § 1255(e) (3)’ s g ood faith exception controlled, a nd that the re cord must demonstratethrough “‘c lear and convinc ing e vidence ’ that the mar riag e wa s entere d into in good faith.” (B r. Supp. Appea l 8–9 (quoting 8 U .S.C. § 1255(e)(2) , (3)) .) 7op po rtu ni ty to ra is e th is ch al le ng e. Becaus e h e d idno t d o s o, h e fai le d t o e xh au st

th is cla im be fo re the BIA an d we l ackjuri sd ic ti onto ad dr es s h is in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ar gu m en ts . See Am ay a-Artun du ag a, 46 3 F .3dat 1 25 0. II . Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he
ex te ntth atth e BIA ad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, i n wh ic h c as e we al so rev ie w th e IJ ’s de ci si on . Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (“ In so far a s th e Bo ardad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, we re vi ew th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.”) . In thi s cas e, th e BIA ag reedwith t he IJ’s re as on in g tha t the ha rm Cas o- Gira ld o a ll eg ed ly
su ffer eddi d n otris e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . Thu s, we wi ll rev ie w bo thth e de ci si on of t he BIA an d t ha t o f th e IJ . See i d. W e rev ie w de no vo th e ag en cy ’s con cl us io ns of l aw, bu t re vi ew fi nd in gs of factfor subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he m . Kazemzad ehv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 77 F.3 d 1 34 1, 1 35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . “ Ourrev ie w forsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l.” Id . at 1 35 1. “ [W] e v ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof th atde ci si on .” Adef

em i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). W e m ay

no t “ re-we ig h the ev id en ce fr om scr at ch ” an d m

us t af firm th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n i f “ itis supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve 8ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Kazemzad eh , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 1

(ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . “Und er thi s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l st an da rdof r ev ie w, th e [ag en cy ’s] de ci si on canbe rev ers edon ly if th e ev id en ce co m pe ls a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
.

“ [T]he m ere f

actth atth e rec or d m ay

supp ort a c on tra ry

co nc lu si on is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of t he adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Ad efem i, 3 86 F.3dat 1 02 7. Und er the INA, an al ie n s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al m us t s ho w th athi s

“ li fe o r free do m

wou ldbe th reat en edin[hi s] cou nt ry [of ori gi n] be cau se of [ hi s]
race , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). “ The ali enbe ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t i t i s ‘m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ’ [h e] will be pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu red up on be in g re tu rn edto [hi s] cou nt ry .” Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2 (quo ti ng Fah im v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 2 78 F.3d12 16 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )). Thi s s ta nd ard , al so kn own as “ cl ear p ro babi li ty of pe rs ecu ti on ,” is m or e st rin ge ntth anth atus ed to ev al ua te ap pl ic at io ns forasylum . Rui z v . Gon zal ez, 4 79 F.3d76 2, 7 64 –6 6 & n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). An al ie n m ay

sat is fy hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al intwo way s. Tanv. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 46 F.3d13 69 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Fir st , an

9al ie n m ay

est ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d. Pa stpe rs ecu ti on crea te s a r eb ut tabl e p res um pt io n t ha t h e h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on an d s hi fts th e b ur de n t o the go ve rn m en t t o s ho w chang edco nd it io ns in th e co un try or the ab il it y

to av oi d afutur e th reatth ro ug h re lo cat io n. Id . Seco nd , anali enm ay

est ab li sh th atitis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d up on rem ov al du e to a pr ot ect edgro un d. Id . Howev er, anali en“ m us t de m on st rat e th athi s o r he r fea r of pe rs ecu ti on is subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Al Najjar, 2 57 F.3dat 1 28 9. “ Onl y ina ‘rare cas e’ do es th e rec or d c om

pe l the co nc lu si on th atanali enha s s uf fere d p as t p ers ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on .” Ro dr ig ue z Mo ral es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 48 8 F .3d88 4, 8 90 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Sil vav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 48 F.3d 12 29 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )). Cas o- Gira ld o’s b rie f on ap pe al arg ue s o nl y th athe is en ti tl edto withh ol di ng of rem ov al . It m en ti on s t he Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re o nl y to st at e th atitis
un ne ces sary

forth is Co urt t o a dd res s wh ethe r he is en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r th at tre aty . Accor di ng ly, th e o nl y is su e p ro pe rly befo re thi s C ou rt i s wh ethe r th e BIA
an d IJ erre d i n d en y in g h is ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 22 8 n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (no ti ng th atth e p et it io ne r ab an do ne d a ny chal le ng e to th e d en ia l o f rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Agai ns t 10Tortur e b ecau se he fai le d t o o fferarg um en t o n t he is su e).

Sp eci fic al ly, th e rel ev an t p orti on s o f Cas o- Gira ld o’s b rie f fo cu s al m os t
ex cl us iv el y

on th e que st io n o f whe th er the IJ f ai le d t o c on si de r th e arg um en t tha t hi s fa th er’s p ol it ic al op in io n c ou ldbe im pu te d t o h im . Con tra ry

to th e al le ga ti on s of hi s b rie f, th e IJdi d i n fa ctad dr es s thi s ar gu m en t, b utst il l co nc lu de d t ha t Ca so Gira ld o was no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. The IJ he ld , andth e BIA ag reed , th atCas oGira ld o h adno t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce tha t h e was eit he r subjec t t o p as t pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d o r th athe wou ldm or e li ke ly tha n n otbe
subjec t t o fu tu re p ers ecu ti on were h e returne d t o P eru . In d eny in g C as o- Gira ld o’s ap pl ic at io n, the IJ r el ie d o n a lt ern at iv e g ro un ds to co nc lu de th athe ha d n ot de m on st rat edpa stpe rs ecu ti on . The IJ fou ndth at(1) th e ag gr eg at e o f th e h arm s o f whi chCas o- Gira ld o c om pl ai ne d d idno t am ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on , and(2) th e h arm su ffer edwas n otco nn ect edto a pr ot ect edgro un d. Acco rd in gl y , Cas o- Gira ld o’s
en ti re ar gu m en t o n app eal —tha t the ag en cy fai le d t o t ak e in to co ns id erat io n t he th eo ry of i m pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n a s a b as is forest ab li sh in g ane xu s b etweenth e ha rm su ffer edan d apro te ct edgro un d— fo cu se s o n t he sec on d o f th es e two , in de pe nd en tl y

di sp os it iv e p ro ng s. See Sil va , 44 8 F .3dat 1 23 6 (“ Each av enue of
as y lu m rel ie f requi res pro of

of t wo cr it eri a. To es tabl is h a sylum ba se d o n p as t pe rs ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve (1) th atsh e was pe rs ecu te d, an d (2 ) th atth e

11pe rs ecu ti on was o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d.” ).

Thu s, Ca so -Gir al do ha s n otch al le ng edtwo di ffer en t ag en cy co nc lu si on s, a de ci si on th atpro ve s fa ta l t o h is ap pl ic at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, he fai ls to ad dr es s the fin di ng s tha t (1 ) he di d n otsu fferpa stha rm am ou nt in g t o p ers ecu ti on , and(2) he di d n otest ab li sh th atitis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d upo n return t o P eru . Whi le he cit es to au th or it y to supp ort h is po si ti on th athi s fa th er’s 2 po li ti cal op in io ns ou gh t t o b e im pu te d t o h im

as ast atut or il y

pro te ct edgro un d, h e m ak es no arg um en t an d c it es to no au th or it y to un de rm in e ei th er o f th e two ag en cy fin di ng s d es cri be d abo ve . Cf. Doe v. Mo or e, 41 0 F .3d13 37 , 13 49 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 3
Caso-Gira ldo’s does conte nd that the IJ evaluated only his asylum claim and er

red by 2 “wholly fail[ing] to consider the Petitioner’s c laim under withholdingof re moval.” Howe ver, this statement is not accura te. The IJconclude d that beca use Caso-Gir aldo had not eve n established the less string ent asylum standard, he c ould not satisfy the burde n associate d with an application to withhold removal. See Rodrigue z Morales, 488 F.3d at 891 (“[A]n alien unable to prove a ‘we ll-founded f

ear ’ of pe rsec ution based on a pr otected ground, as r equire d for a sylum relief , nece ssarily

fails to demonstrate a

‘cle ar probability

of per secution,’ the ‘ standard applicable to a claim for

withholding of r emoval.’” (quotingRuiz , 479 F.3d at 764)). Caso-Gira ldo testified that he wa s the victim of death thre ats and a n attempted 3 abduction, duringwhich his ca r wa s box ed in and ther e “w as some cr ossfire” befor e his trained driver thwa

rted the attempted abduction. (A dmin. R. 209.) W e have held that if a pe titioner is able to esta

blish the requisite conne ction betwee n a statutorily protec ted ground and a

murder attempt, the petitioner might establish persec ution for the purpose s of an a sylum application. See Sanchez J imenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F .3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2007) (c oncludingthat the rec ord compe lled the conc lusion that petiti oner suf fer ed per secution whe n the petitioner testified that he had r ece ived re peate d death thre ats, repor ted these thre ats to g overnme nt security forc es, was told that he wa s a “military targ et” ( an indication that he a nd his family

had bee n marke d for death) , a kidnapingattempt had bee n made on his daughter, a nd two arme d men in masks followed him from a

political associate’ s home and shot at his him while he wa s driving) ; cf. Silva, 448 F.3d at 1238; Sepulveda, 401 F .3d at 1231. As noted a bove, howe ver, Caso- Giraldo’s petition before this Court m akes no a rgument as to the I J ’s finding“that what [ Caso-Gira ldo]

1220 05 ) (“ On ap pe al , we requi re ap pe ll an ts to no t o nl y st at e th ei r co nt en ti on s t o u s, bu t al so to gi ve ‘ th e rea so ns forth em , with c it at io ns to th e au th or it ie s an d p art s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h the ap pe ll an t re li es .’ ” (quo ti ng Fed . R. App . P. 28 (a)( 9) (A))). Inli gh t o f th is sh ortc om in g, we ca nn otco nc lu de th atth e ag en cy erre d wh enit de te rm in edCas o- Gira ld o h adno t d em on st rat edth atth ere was a cl ear p ro babi li ty th athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on hi s re tu rnto Peru
. II I. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w inpa rt a nddi sm is s i n pa rt. PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART; DI SMI SSED I N PART.

encounte red in the a g greg ate . . . [does not] rise to the level of per secution.” We ther efor e express no opinion as to whether the fac ts of this case c ompel the same c onclusion as Sanche z J imenez. 13