FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 10, 2005 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1323 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N os. A 79- 044- 246 & A 79- 044- 247 CESAR ELIU ROMERO-R ODRIGUEZ, MAYCOL JESUS ROMERO-R ODRIGUEZ, Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Petition for Reviewof an O rder of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 10, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Through couns el, Cesar Eliu Rom ero-Rodriguez (“ Cesar” ) and his brother, May col Jesus Rom ero-Rodriguez (“ May col”) (c ollectively “ the petition ers”) , petition for r eview of

the Board of I m

m igration Appeal’ s (“ BIA ”) f inal order, affir m ing, without opin ion, the Im m igration Ju dge’ s (“ IJ”) dec ision deny ing th em asy lum and withholdi ng of rem oval und er the I m m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A ”) and the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, Inhum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”) . B ec au se the pe tit ion er s r em ova l pr oc ee din gs w er e co m m en ce d a ft er

1Apr il 1997 , the pe rm an en t r

ule s of the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ionRe fo rm

and I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity A ct of 199 6, P ub. L . N o. 104 -2 08, 110 S ta t. 300 9 ( 1996 ), gov er n th ei r pe tit ionf

or review . A r eview of

the rec ord does no t com

pel the conclusio n that the petitio ners suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n or

ha d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on and indicates that sub stantial evidence supp orts the IJ’ s finding that the petition ers fa ile d to de m onstrate the ir e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum . Mo re ove r, be ca use the bur de n of proof for w ithho lding of rem oval und er the INAand the CAT is high er than that fo r as y lu m , th e IJ als o p ro pe rly den ie d t he pe ti ti on ers wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . A cc or din gly , the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wis DEN IED .3 I. BACKG ROUND O n or about 21 S ep te m

be r 2001 , the pe tit ion er s, na tiv es and c iti ze ns o f Honduras, e ntered the U nited States without being adm itted or paroled. S ee R1 at 357, 445. That sam e day , the I m m igration and Naturalization Service (“ IN S”) served the petitioners with Notices to Appear in Rem oval Proceedings. A t an ini tia l he ar ing be fo re an I J, the pe tit ion er s, thr oughc ouns el , c onc ed ed the ir re m ova bil ity , but ind ic at ed the ir int en t t o su

bm it ap pli catio ns f

or a sy lum and wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA an d t he CAT. The I J issued a decision with re spect to each petitioner and m ade sim ilar finding s in bot h cases. The I J found th at the testim ony of both petiti oners was

“ ge ne ra lly ” or

“ fa ir ly c onsi ste nt” w iththe ir

a sy lum appl ic at ion s, w iththe ex ce pti on tha t the ir

appl ic at ion s st at ed

that the y f ir st w er e re cr

uit ed in 1994 , w hil e th ey tes ti fie d t ha t t he y

fir st were ap pr oa ch edby the ga ng in 19 99 . R1 at 24 , 48 . The I J indicated, however , that he w as concerned w ith the following: (1) C esar state d th at

he c am e to the U nit ed

S ta te s no t on ly

to av oid the pr es sur e of

j oin ing a gang i n H ondura s, but

a lso to supp ort hi s w if

e; and ( 2) May co l l ef

t H ondura s on ly tw o day s a ft er

the bir th o f his daught er , w hic h su gge sts that he m ay have c om e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e p ur po se of a cqui rin g e m

pl oym en t t o s up po rt h is da ug ht er. Ne xt, the IJ stated that, given the Coun try Report and other docum entation, he wa s4

aw ar e that H ondura s ha d apr obl em w ithgangs an d th e law le ssn es s ge ne rate d by the ir a ct ivi tie s. T he I J f

ound , how ev er , that C es ar and M ay co l f

ai le d to dem onstrate that they

had been persecuted or had a w ell-founded fear of future persecution on account of any of the five statutory

grounds . Noting that, under Matte r of V igi l, 19 I &ND ec . 572 ( BI A198 8) , the f or ce d r ec ru itm en t of

y oung m enby gue rr ill a or ganiz at ion s do es not c onst itu te pe rs ec uti on w ith in the m eanin g of the IN A, the IJ found that, sim ilarly , the attem pted recruitm ent of the petitioners by agang i nvol ve d e xc lus ive ly in cr im ina l a ct ivi tie s di d no t c onst itu te pe rs ecu ti on . Additionally , the I J noted th at, with respect to Ce sar, althoug h he asserted that he ha d be enr ec ru ite d onse ve ra l oc ca sio ns, he ha d ne ve r be enharm ed . I n th e de ci sio n r eg ar din g M ay co l, the I J st at ed that, be ca

use the H onduran go ve rn m en t w as a tte m

pti ng t o c ontro l the law le ssn es s th at e xis ts i n th at

c ountry , he c oul d no t fi nd tha t a

r ea sona ble pe rs on i n th e May co l’ s si tuatio n w oul d f ear re tur nin g to Hon du ras on acco un t o f an y of t he fiv e st atut ory

gro un ds . R1 at 25 , 49 . A cc or din gly , the I J f

ound that the pe tit ion er s ha d f ai le d to m ee t the ir

bur de n f or as y lum . R 1 a t 26 , 49. T he I J th enf

ound that, sin ce the pe tit ion er s f ai le d to m ee t the ir

bur de n f or as y lum , the y

c oul d no t m ee t the hig he r bur de n of pr oof r equir ed f or w ith hol din g5

of rem oval und er the INA . Ne xt, the IJ f oundthat the petition ers fa iled to m eet the ir bur de n f or CA T r el ie f sin ce the y

ha d ne ve r be entor

tur ed , and the re w as no re as on t o be lie ve that, upo n th ei r re tur n to H ondura s, the y

“ w oul d be tor

tur ed by the act or a cquiescence or c onsent o f an off icial or person acting in an official cap aci ty.” R1 at26 ; 5 0. The petitioners appealed the IJ’ s decision, arguing th at they had established that the y w er e pe rs ec ute d and h ad aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of the ir m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup. T he BI Ase nt the pe tit ion er s a br ie fi ng s ch ed

uli ng, w hic h st at ed

that the pe tit ion er s ha d un til 12 Apr il 2004 , to file a brie f. A fter the dea dline for filing briefs had passed, the petitioners subm itted their brief, along with a m otion to accept a late-filed brie f, but the BIA de nie d th e pe tit ion er s’ m oti on. T he re af te r, the BI Aa ff

irm ed , w ith out

opi nio n, the IJ ’s dec is io n. II. D ISCU SSION O n a ppe al , the pe tit ion er s arg ue that the I J e rr ed by de ny ing the ir application for asy lum

and withholdi ng of rem oval because they established th at the y suf fe re d pe rs ec uti on, in the f orm of thr eats, on a cc ount

of the ir m em be rs hip in a soc ia l gr oup. T he y

ide nti fy the ir soc ia l gr oup as “ H onduran c iti ze ns pe rs ec ute d f

or the ir r ef usa l t o j oinac ri m ina l or ganiz at ion. . . due to the ir r el igi ous6

and conscientio us upb ringing .” Petitioners’ brief at 14. T he petition ers further assert that (1) due to “ their unwillingn ess to betray their trained consciences, ” they w oul d be pe rs ec ute d if

the y r et ur ne d to H ondura s, and ( 2) the y “ shou ld n ot b e pla ce d inapos iti on i n w hic h th ey w ill be f or ce d to c om

m it ac ts tha t go a ga ins t th ei r rel ig io us up br in gi ng .” Id . at 1 2, 1 4. W e re view the I J’ s decision in this case, not th e BI A’ s, beca use the BIA summ arily

aff irm ed the IJ’ s decision, thereby m aking th at the final agency determ ination . See Sepulveda v. U .S . A ttorney Ge neral, F .3d , ( 11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2005). T o the extent that the IJ’ s decision was based on a legal de te rm inatio n, w e re vie wthe I J’ s de ci sio n de nov o. Mo ha m m ed v. A shc ro ft , 261 F. 3d 1 244, 124 7- 48 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . W e re vie wthe I J’ s f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns unde r the sub stanti al e vid en ce standard and “ m ust a ff irm the [ IJ ’ s] de ci sio n if

it is supp orted by

rea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the rec ord co nsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” S ep ulv ed a, F . 3d at ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itted). “ Under this highlydefer ential standard of review , the I J’ s decision can be r ev er se d on ly

if the e vid en ce c om

pe ls a r ea sona ble f ac t f ind er to fi nd otherwise. ” Id. at . (internal quotation s and citation om itted). A n a lie n w ho arr ive s in , or is pr es en t i n, the U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or as y lum . 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ). T he A tto rn ey G en er al ha s th e dis cr et ionto gr an t7

asy lum if the alien m eets the IN A’ s definition of a “ refugee. ” 8 U .S .C. § 11 58( b) (1 ). A“ re fu ge e” is: [A ] ny pe rs on who i s ou tsi de any c ountry of suc h pe rs on’ s natio na lity

. . . and who i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or unwilling to avail him self or herse lf of the protection of, that c ount ry be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n account of rac e, religion, nationality , m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup, or

pol iti ca l op ini on. 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng statutory “ refugee” status. N ajj ar v. Ashcrof t, 257 F. 3d 12 62, 1284 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). I f the appl ic an t m ee ts this bur de n, the n th e A G m ay e xe rc ise his dis cr et ion to grant the applicant asy lum . Id. The B IAdefines “ m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup” a s pe rs ons w ho h old “ anim m uta ble c hara ct er ist ic ” or

c om m on tra it

“ suc h a s se x, c olo r, or

kin shi p ti es , or

in som e ci rc um stanc es . . . share d pa st expe ri en ce [s ] suc h a s f

orm er m ili tary le ad er shi p or

land o w ne rs hip . ” Matte r of Ac osta, 19 I & NDe c. 211, 233 (BIA1985 ), overruled on other groun ds byMatter of Mo gh arrabi , 19 I & N Dec. 4 39 (BIA 1 98 7) . T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity , the a lie n m

ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le evidence, e stablish : (1) past persec ution on account of a statutorily listed factor; or (2) a “ we ll-founded fear” that the statutorilylisted factor w ill cause future persecution. 8 C. F. R. § 208 .13(a) , ( b); Na jj ar, 257 F.3d at 1287. A “ we ll-founded8

fear ” of perse cution m ay

be established byshowing (1) past persecution that creates a presum

ption of a “ we ll-founded fear” of future persec ution , ( 2) a re as ona ble pos sib ili ty

of pe rs ona l pe rs ec uti on tha t c an not be a voi de d by

r el oc at ing w ith in the sub

j ec t c ountry , or

( 3) apa tte rnor

pr ac tic e in the sub

j ec t c ountry

of pe rs ec uti ng m em

be rs of astatut or ily

de fi ne d gr oup of

w hic h th e pe tit ion er

is a part . 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (1 ), ( 2) . “ [T ] he statut e pr ote ct s a ga ins t pe rs ec uti on n ot onl y by gov er nm en t f or ce s bu t a lso by

non gove rn m en ta l gr oups that the governm ent cannot control.” Sotelo-A quije v. Slattery , 17 F. 3d 33 , 37 (2nd Cir. 1994 ). N ei the r the I N A nor the r eg ulatio ns d ef

ine “pe rs ec uti on. ” I n G onz al ez v. Re no, 212 F . 3d 1 338, 135 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) , how ev er , w e dis cu sse d othe r ci rc uit s’ hold ings th at “persecution” is an “ extrem e concept,” requiring m ore than “ a fe w is ol at edin ci de nt s o f ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n,” or “ [m ]ere ha ras sm en t.”

“ [T ] o be an a ct

of pe rs ec uti on, the be ha vio r . . . m ust thr eate n de ath, im pr iso nm en t, or

the inf lic tio n of sub stanti al harm

or suf fe ri ng. ” S hari f v. I N S, 87 F. 3d 9 32, 935 ( 7thCi r. 199 6) . “ T hr eats a lon e ge ne ra lly do n ot c onst itu te pe rs ec uti on; onl y

r ar el y , w he n th ey

are so i m m ed ia te and m en ac ing a s to c au se signi ficant suffer ing or harm in them selves, do threats per se qualify as pe rs ecu ti on .” Vatu le v v . Ash cro ft, 3 54 F.3d12 07 , 12 10 (10 th Cir . 20 03 ).9

If “ anappl ic an t i s un ab le to m ee t the ‘ w el l- fo unde d f ear’ standard

f or as y lum , 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 de porta tio n. ” N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 92- 93 ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio ns om itted). T he burden of proof for an applicant for w ithho lding of rem oval und er the CAT , a s with the applicant und er the INA , is higher than the burden im posed on an asylu m

ap pl ic an t. Id . at 1 30 3. Upon care fu l r ev ie wof

the r ec or d onappe al and u pon co nsi de ratio n of

the pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r. III. C ONC LUS ION Be ca use ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d do es not

c om pe l the c onc lus ionthat the petition ers suffe red past persecution or had a w ell-founded fear of future persecution, substanti al evidence supports th e IJ’ s finding that the petition ers f a i l e dt o d e mo n s t r a t e th e i r e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r a s yl u m. Mor eo ve r, be ca use the bur de n of proof for w ithho lding of rem oval und er the INAand the CAT is high er than that for asy lum , the I J also properly denied the petitio ners withholdin g of rem oval . Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.