FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 9, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14870 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 263- 069 & A 95- 263- 070 F R A N C I S C O J A V I E R G O N Z A L E S C A S T R O , L U Z D A R Y E S C O B A R R E S T R E P O , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M a y 9, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Castro is the primary petitioner. Restrepo, Ca stro’s wife , is a derivative applicant a nd 1 th e re f o rere l i e s o nC a s tro ’ s a

p p l i c at i o nan d

t e s t i m o ny. Be causethe petitioners’ removal proc eeding s commence d after April 1, 1997, the 2 eff ective da te of the Illeg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) (“ IIRIRA”), this ca se is g overne d by the perma nent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) , as amended by

IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Orope

za v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 2003). The pe titioners abandone d their claim for withholding of removal under the United 3 Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, Inhuman or De gradingTreatment or Punishm ent (“ CAT”), by

failingto raise a

ny argument on this claim in their petition for review. See Se pulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 2 F r a nc i s c o J a vi e rG onz a l e s C a s tr o a nd L uz D a ry E s c oba rR e s tr e po (c ol l ec t i vel y, “ the pet i t i on er s” ), throu gh coun se l , pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard 1 of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on, w hi c h a f f i r m e d the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m ova l or de ra nd de ny i ng the i rc l a i m s f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) . 2 T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n ( 1) de ny i ng the i ra s y l um appl i ca t i on because they f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s e x c u s in g th e u n tim e ly f ilin g o f th e ira s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , a n d ( 2 ) d e n y in g th e ir appl i c a t i on f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A . T he pe t i t i one r s c ont e nd 3 thatthey pre se nt ed subst ant i al evi dence of pastpers ec ut i on and a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n f

r o m th e R e v o lu tio n a ry A r m e d F o r c e s o f C o lo m b ia ( “ F A R C ” ) ba s e d on a n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on. I . A s y l u m A p p l i c at i on3

W e a r e “o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u a s p o n te w henever i tm ay be l ac ki ng . ” C ad et v. B ul ger , 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). A n asy l um appl i ca t i on m ustbe “ fi l ed w i thi n 1 ye ar a f te rth e d a te o f

th e a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . A n u nt i m el y app l i ca t i on “ m ay be consi dere d . . . i f the al i en dem on stra t es . . . extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s r el at i ng t o the del ay i n fi l i ng an appl i ca t i on . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2)( D ). H ow ever , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hether e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s e xcuse a n u n tim e ly ap p lic a tio n . I

d. ; s e e al

s o Sanc hezv . U

. S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 437 (11th C i r. 20 04 ); Me ndoz a v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o tin g th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) “d iv e s ts o u rC o u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a d e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie d w ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it or es t abl i shed extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s thatw ou l d excuse hi s unt i m el y f i l i ng ”) . B e c a us e w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on, the pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s di s m i s s e d t o the e xt e nttha ti ts e e ks r e vi e w of the de ni a l of

the pe t i t i one r s ’ a s y l um appl i c a t i on orthe de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe i rappl i c a t i on w a s t i m e - ba rr e d. I I . W i t h h ol d i n g of

R e m oval W he n the B I A i s s ue s a de c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e x te n t th a t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a d o p ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ I ns of a ra s the [ B I A ] a dopt s the I J ’ s r e a s oni ng,4

[thi s C ou rt ] re vi ew [s ] the IJ ’ s dec i si on as w el l . ” I d. We r e v i e w th e l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f th e B I A de nov o . D -M uh um ed v. U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he B IA ’ s f ac tual d et erm i n at i o n s are rev i ew ed u n d er th e su b st an t i al ev i d en ce t est , an d w e “ m u st a f f i r m the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd prob at i ve evi dence on t he re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N aj j ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 1283–84 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ W ] e c a nnote nga ge i n f a c t - f i ndi ng on appe a l , nor m ay w e w ei gh evi dence thatw as no tprevi ou sl y c on si dere d b el ow . ” I d. a t 1 2 7 8 . T h erefo re, w e w i l l rev erse a find i n g o f fact“ o n l y w h en th e reco rd co m p el s a r e ve r s a l ; the m e r e f

a c ttha tthe r e c or d m a y s uppor ta c ontr a ry c onc l us i on i s not enou gh t o j ust i fy a r ever sa l of the adm i ni stra t i ve fi nd i ng s. ” A de fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i l ed , ( U .S . O c t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( N o . 0 4 - 7 9 4 4 ) ; see a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “ [ T ] he a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny r e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t orw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry . . . .” ) . W e a ls o r e v ie w c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n s u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, a n d w e “m a y n o t s u b s titu te [our] j ud gm entfor thatof the B IA w i th res pectt o cre di bi l i ty f i nd i ng s. ” DMuh um ed , 388 F . 3d a t818. A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f he c a n s how tha thi s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof hi s r a c e , r e l i gi on,5

n a tio n a lity , m e m b e r s h ip in ap a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . Men do za , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ; see a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . “ A n a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d or t ortured up on hi s r eturn t o the coun try i n q uest i on . ” Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287; see a l so 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b). A n al i en ca n m ee thi s burden b y s ho w i ng ei ther (1) “ pastpers ec ut i on i n h i s c ou ntry base d o n a prot ec t ed grou nd , ” i n w hi ch ca se a r e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on i s c r e a t e d tha thi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i f he w a s r e turne d t o hi s c ountry ; or( 2) “ a f utur e thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom on a prot ec t ed grou nd i n h i s c ou ntry . ” Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287. I n di s c us s i ng a l l e ge d pe r s e c ut i on f

r om the F A R C , w e ha ve s t a t e d: T o q u al i fy fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al b ased o n p ersecu t i o n b y a g u eri l l a g ro u p o n acco u n to f a p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n , [a p et i t i o n er] m u st e s tab lis h th a t th e g u e r illa s p e r s e c u te d [ h im ] o rw ill s e e k to p e r s e c u te [hi m ] i n the future be c aus e of [ h is ] a c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . Iti s notenou gh t o sho w that[he] w as or w i l l be pers ec ut ed or t ortured d u e t o [h i s] refu sal t o co o p erat e w i th th e g u eri l l as. Sanc hezv . U

. S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). A l tho ug h the IN A do es no texpres sl y def i ne “ pers ec ut i on , ” w e have s t at ed that“ pers ec ut i on i s a n ext re m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than a few i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on . ” Se pulv e da , 401 F . 3d a t1331 ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) .6

In thi s c as e, the pet i t i on er s s etforth the fol l ow i ng grou nd s t o est abl i sh future p e r s e c u tio n : h e c la im s th a t h e h e ld a n a n ti- F A R C p o litic a l o p in io n , th a t th e g u e r illa gr oups i s a w a r e of

tha topi ni on, tha thi s br othe r s w e r e ki l l e d be c a us e the y he l d the s a m e p o litic a l o p in io n , a n d th a t h e w ill lik e ly b e p e r s e c u te d if h e r e tu rn s to h is co u n try. T he B IA agre ed w i th the IJ i n con cl ud i ng thatthe pet i t i on er s di d n otm ee t thei r e vi dent i ary burden i n p rovi ng a threa tof future pers ec ut i on . F i rs t , the IJ not e d tha tC a s tr o’ s t e s t i m ony s how e d tha tthe F A R C m a de de m a nds on hi m not because of hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on , bu tra ther f or fi nanci al supp ort . In addi t i on , the IJ di d notf i nd C a s tr o’ s t e s t i m ony abouthi s r e a s ons f orr e turni ng t o C ol om bi a t o be c r e di bl e . B e c a us e C a s tr o pr ovi de d di f f e r e ntr e a s ons f

orhi s r e turn a tdi f

f e r e nt ti m es , th e I J c o n clu d ed th at th e in tern al in co n sisten cy u n d er m in ed C as tro ’s a r gum e nttha the f

a c e d a thr e a tof

pe r s e c ut i on. H ow ever , subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s c on cl usi on thatpet i t i on er s di d notm e e tthe i rbur de n of pr oof . F ortha tr e a s on, w e r e

j e c tthe pe t i t i on f

or w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . O the rtha n C a s tr o’ s unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony , the r e i s no e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d s h o w in g th a t C a s tr o s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , o rth a t it is m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w ill f a c e a f u tu r e th r e a t o f

p e r s e c u tio n , b e c a u s e o f h is po l i t i ca l op i ni on . Inst ea d, the evi dence dem on stra t es thatC as tro’ s onl y c on t ac t w i th the F A R C w a s noton a c c ountof hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, butr a the rw a s ba s e d on7

the F A R C ’ s a tt e m pt s a tobt a i ni ng s uppor ta nd f i na nc i ng f

r om C a s tr o. A s w e ha ve st at ed, “ [i ] ti s notenou gh t o sho w that[he] w as or w i l l be pers ec ut ed or t ortured du e t o [hi s] re fusa l t o coo pera t e w i th the gu er i l l as . ” Sa nchez , 392 F . 3d a t438. N e ith e rd o e s th e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t C a s tr o is m o re l i k el y th an n o tt o b e p ersecu t ed i f h e retu rn ed t o C o l o m b i a. In fact , th e l ast al l eged cont ac tw i th the F A R C occurre d i n O ct ob er19 99 w hen C as tro’ s nephew r e c e i ve d a t e l e phone c a l l a tC a s tr o’ s bus i ne s s . A f t e rthi s a l l e ge d pe r s e c ut i on, C as tro di d n otl ea ve C ol om bi a unt i l M ar ch 20 00 , abou ttw o m on ths af t erhe had o b ta in e d a v is a . I n a d d itio n , C a s tr o th e n r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia f o re ig h t m o n th s in 2000, appa r e nt l y w i th no tr oubl e . A c c or di ngl y , the B I A ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe p e titio n e r s d id n o t e s tab lis h a c le a rp r o b ab ility th a t th e y w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d if re turned t o C ol om bi a i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. I I I . C on c l u s i on F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , the pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s di s m i s s e d i n pa r ta nd d e n ie d in p a r t. P E T IT IO N D IS M IS S E D i n p art, an d D E N IE D i n p art.