FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 18, 2008 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. 07- 14017 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 95- 855- 374 A 95- 855- 375 G E N T I A N A M A R I N I , R O B E R T M A R I N I , 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 D e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 18, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Th e I NS is no w pa

rt of the Depa

rtment of Ho me land Se c urity . The Hom elandS ecurity 1 Act of 2002 ( “HSA”) , Pub. L . 107-296, Stat. 2125 (Nov. 25, 2002). Marini offered no a

rgument concerningthe denial of CAT relief

on appeal to the BIA. 2 And she does not raise the issue in her petition for review. Thus, the CAT c laims are unexhausted, Fernande z-Ber

nal v. U.S . Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001), and a bandoned, Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005). Although Ma

rini alleg ed per secut i o n o nacc ount of membership in a pa rticular soc ial 3 group , s heof

fere d n o evide nc e or argument on that c laim. Thus , it is n ot p roperly

be fo rethi s c ourt . 2 G ent i ana M ar i ni , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f A l bani a, on behal f of her se l f a nd her hus ba nd R obe rt , pe t i t i ons thi s c our tf orr e vi e w of

the de ni a l of

a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . A f

t e ra thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e de ny the p e titio n . M ar i ni and R ob ertarri ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n 2 00 1 b utw er e notadm i tt ed o rp a r o le d , a n dth e I N S is s u e d n o tic e s to ap p e a rc h a r g in g th e m w ith r e m o v ab ility 1 un der I N A § 2 12 (a )( 6)(A )( i ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (6)( A )( i ). M ar i ni subm i tt ed an ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e CAT, 2 a lle g in g th a t s h e h a d b e e n p e r s e c u te d d u e to h e rp o litic a l o p in io n a n d m e m b e r s h ip in a p a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p . M a r in i a n d h e rf a m ily w e r e m e m b e r s o f th e L e g a lity 3 M o v em en tan d D em o crat i c P arty i n A l b an i a, w h ere M ari n i al so w o rk ed as a s e c r e t a ry . A s a c hi l d, M a r i ni w a s di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns ti n s c hool . B e tw e e n 1997 and 2 00 1, she r ec ei ved threa t s, som eone t osse d a bo m b ather hom e, she w as de t a i ne d f

ors e ve r a l hour s dur i ng w hi c h t i m e the pol i c e of f i c e ra tt e m pt e d t o c hoke3

he r , a nd s he w a s s truc k on the l e g dur i ng he rbr othe r ’ s a rr e s t , r e s ul t i ng i n a p e r m a n e n t s c a r . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) de ni e d r e l i e f , f i ndi ng tha t , a l though M a r i ni w a s c r e di bl e , M a r i ni ha d note s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on be c a us e the a l l e ga t i ons in v o lv e d o n ly a f

e w in c id e n ts o f

h a r a s s m e n t. T h e I J f

u r th e rf o u n d th a t M a r in i d id notha ve a n obj e c t i ve l y w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c a us e the c o u n try r e p o r ts a n d o th e rd o c u m e n ts in d ic a te d th a t A lb a n ia w a s n o lo n g e rin a s ta te of po l i t i ca l up heaval , po l i t i ca l vi ol ence ended i n 1 99 8, there w as no evi dence that th e S o c ia lis t P a r ty s o u g h t r e tr ib u tio n a g a in s t its o p p o n e n ts a n d th e D e m o c r a tic P a r ty c urr e nt l y w a s a c t i ve i n the gove rnm e nt . F i na l l y , the I J c onc l ude d tha tM a r i ni c o u ld h a v e r e lo c a te d . M ar i ni appeal ed t o the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) , w hi ch a f f ir m e d th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n a n d a d o p te d th e I J ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s . T he B I A c onc l ude d tha t , c ons i de r i ng the e ve nt s c um ul a t i ve l y , M a r i ni ha d not es t abl i shed pastpers ec ut i on because the peri od of det ent i on w as shortand there w a s no s i gni f

i c a nti nj ury . N e ve r the l e s s , the B I A f ound tha t , e ve n i f

M a r i ni e s tab lis h e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d r e b u tte d th e in f e r e n c e o f a w e llf ounde d f e a rw i th e vi de nc e tha tM a r i ni r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve r e l oc a t e d. M a r i ni n o w p e titio n s th is c o u r t f o rr e v ie w .4

M a r i ni a r gue s tha tthe B I A e rr e d by c onc l udi ng tha tthe pe r m a ne nts c a rs he s u f f e r e d w a s n o t a s e r io u s in ju ry a n d th a t a lth o u g h th e B I A a c k n o w le d g e d th a t it m u s t c o n s id e rth e e v e n ts c u m u la tiv e ly , th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n s h o w s th a t it f a ile d to do so. M ar i ni nextar gu es thatthe B IA erroneou sl y c on cl ud ed thatre l ocat i on w as a n opt i on a nd tha tthe B I A ’ s f a ul ty c onc l us i on on r e l oc a t i on a l s o l e d t o the erroneou s dec i si on thatM ar i ni fa i l ed t o est abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n . W e r e v ie w o n ly th e d e c is io n o f th e B I A , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the op i ni on of the IJ . A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . F a c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s a r e r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, and w e “ m ustaf

fi rm the B IA ’ s dec i si on i f i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . A f i ndi ng of f a c tw i l l be r e ve r s e d “ onl y w he n the re cord com pel s are vers al ; the m er e f ac tthatthe re cord m ay supp orta c on tra ry concl usi on i s notenou gh t o j ust i fya r ever sa l of the adm i ni stra t i ve fi nd i ng s. ” A d e f e m i v . A s h c r o f

t, 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 ) . “U n d e rth is hi ghl y de f

e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w , de ni a l of

r e l i e f m a y be r e ve r s e d onl y i f the evi dence w ou l d com pel a r ea sonabl e f ac tfi nd ert o con cl ud e thatthe re qu i si t e f ea r of pers ec ut i on exi st s. ” D el gado v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 48 7 F . 3d 85 5, 86 0 (11 th C i r.5

2007) . L e ga l de t e r m i na t i ons a r e r e vi e w e d de novo. R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T o b e e l i gi bl e f

or as yl um , an appl i ca ntm ustprov e thatshe i s a“ re fugee” w i thi n the m ea ni ng of the IN A . 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(1)(A ); se e genera l l y S anchez Ji m enez v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 49 2 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 31 -32 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). A “ re fugee” i s d efi n ed , i n rel ev an tp art , as: a n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try o f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity ... a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c a us e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . A n appl i c a ntc a n pr ove r e f uge e s t a tus i n one of

tw o w a y s : by de m ons tr a t i ng p astp ersecu t i o n o r fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b ). T o est ab l i sh as yl um base d o n p as tpers ec ut i on , the appl i ca ntm ustprov e ( 1) thatshe w as p e r s e c u te d , a n d ( 2 ) th a t th e p e r s e c u tio n w a s o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o te c te d g r o u n d . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; S a n c h e z J im e n e z , 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 2 . I n a d d itio n to p ro v i d i n g an i n d ep en d en tav en u e fo r asyl u m el i g i b i l i ty, a sh o w i n g o f p ast pers ec ut i on cr ea t es a r ebut t abl e pre sum pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( b) ( 1) ; S a nc he z J i m e ne z , 492 F . 3d a t1232 ( c i t i ng S e pul ve da v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ) . T he6

appl i ca nt ’ s pre sum pt i vel y w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on m ay be re bu tt ed by the go vernm enti f the go vernm entshow s, by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence, i nt e ra l i a , tha tthe appl i c a ntc oul d a voi d f utur e pe r s e c ut i on by r e l oc a t i ng w i thi n the c ountry i f

, “ unde ra l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i tw oul d be r e a s onabl e t o e xpe c tthe appl i c a ntt o do s o. ” 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i ) ; A rbol e da v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 434 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 23 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). I f th e ap p lic a n t f

a ils to d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , a n ap p lic a n t m a y s till e s tab lis h a s y lu m b a s e d u p o n p r o o f o f a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2). T he appl i ca ntm ay prov e e l i gi bi l i ty by dem on stra t i ng (1) a s ubj e c t i ve l y ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on tha ti s ( 2) on a c c ountof

a pr ot e c t e d gr ound. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i ) ; S a nc he z J i m e ne z , 492 F .3 d at 1 2 3 2 . “ ‘T h e s u b jectiv e c o m p o n en t i s g en er ally sa ti sf ied b y th e a p p li ca n t’ s cr edi bl e t es t i m on y thathe or she genui nel y f ea rs pers ec ut i on . ’ ” S anchez J i m enez , 49 2 F . 3d at12 32 (quo t i ng A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 89 ). T he obj ec t i ve pron g can be ful fi l l ed by es t abl i shi ng thatthe appl i ca nt“ has ago od re as on t o fea r f uture p e r s e c u tio n .” R u iz v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . O nc e the appl i c a ntm a ke s a n i ni t i a l s how i ng of f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, the gove rnm e ntm a y r e butthe appl i c a nt ’ s e vi de nc e by de m ons tr a t i ng, ba s e d upon a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e , tha tthe appl i c a ntc oul d a voi d f utur e pe r s e c ut i on by7

r e l oc a t i ng w i thi n the c ountry i f , “ unde ra l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i tw oul d be re as on abl e t o exp ec tthe appl i ca ntt o d o so. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2)(i i ). T hi s c ou rthas s ai d that“ ‘ pers ec ut i on i s a n extre 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 , and thatm er e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. ’ ” S a nc he z J i m e ne z , 492 F . 3d a t1232 ( quot i ng S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231) ; s e e a l s o S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta w r i tt e n de a th thr e a ta l one di d not c o m p e l a f

in d in g o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n ) . T h is c o u r t h a s a ls o r e je c te d a r ig id re qu i re m entof ph ys i ca l i nj ury, m aki ng cl ear i n S anchez J i m enez that“ att em pt ed m u r d e ris p e r s e c u tio n ,” r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rth e p e titio n e rw a s in ju r e d a n d e v e n if th e a tta c k is u n s u c c e s s f u l. 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 3 ; s e e a ls o M e jia v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 49 8 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 57 -58, 12 57 n. 7 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( ext endi ng the rul e i n S anchez J im e n e z to o th e rp r o

je c tile s s u c h a s r o c k s ) . “I n a s s e s s in g p a s t p e r s e c u tio n [ th is c our ti s ] r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rthe c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tof the m i s tr e a tm e ntthe pe t i t i one r[ ] s uf

f e r e d. ” M e

j i a , 498 F . 3d a t1258; D e l ga do v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 487 F . 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (ci t i n g R u i z, 4 7 9 F . 3 d at7 6 6 ); R u i z v . G o n zal es, 479 F . 3d 762, 766 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng tha tthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof a be a t i ng, threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s, and a ki dn api ng const i tut ed pers ec ut i on ). T hu s, even th o u g h e a c h in s ta n c e o f m is tr e a tm e n t, w h e n c o n s id e r e d a lo n e , m a y n o t a m o u n t to8

pers ec ut i on , the re cord m ay st i l l com pel a f i nd i ng of pastpers ec ut i on w hen c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . D e l ga do, 487 F . 3d a t861. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e c or d c om pe l s the c onc l us i on tha tM a r i ni e s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. M a r i ni s uf f e r e d m i s tr e a tm e nt b a s e d o n h e rf

a m ily ’s p o litic a l v ie w s f r o m th e tim e s h e w a s a c h ild . A s a n a d u lt, sh e w o rk ed fo r b o th th e L eg al i ty M o v em en tP arty an d th e D em o crat i c P arty, o p p o si n g th e C o m m u n i streg i m e. O v er a p eri o d o f fo u r years, sh e received th reat s, w as arre st ed du ri ng a pol i t i ca l ra l l y, and w as chok ed by a pol i ce offi ce r. H er f a m i l y r e c e i ve d thr e a t s a ga i ns tM a r i ni a nd he rbr othe r . H e rhous e w a s bom be d, al tho ug h n o o ne w as i nj ured. M ar i ni w as pres entw hen h erbrother w as arre st ed and w as struck i n the l eg, re sul t i ng i n an i nj ury thatl ef ta s ca r. F i nal l y, po l i ce cond uct ed a s ea rc h o f herho m e, l oo ki ng for M ar i ni , du ri ng w hi ch they pushed M a r i ni ’ s m othe ra nd s truc k he rf a the r . D ur i ng the s e i nc i de nt s , the pol i c e m a de c o m m e n ts ab o u t M a r in i’s a n d h e rf a m ily ’s p o litic a l v ie w s . W h e n c o m p a r e d to o th er cases fro m th i s co u rt , th ese i n ci d en t s are su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh p ast pe r s e c ut i on. S e e S a nc he z J i m e ne z , 492 F . 3d a t1233; M e j i a , 498 F . 3d a t1257- 58; R u iz , 4 7 9 F .3 d a t 7 6 6 .The SupremeCourt has instructed that, when the IJor B IA has not madefinding s of fact 4 or has not applied thelaw to those fac ts, a ppellate courts should remand to allow the IJto make such deter minations in the firs t i n stance . See I NS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L .Ed.2d 272 (2002); seealso Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 126 S.Ct . 1613, 1615, 164 L .Ed.2d 358 (2006). And the general practice in this circuit is t o rema nd when the IJor B IA fails to m ake “ade quate f

indings”or g ive “re asoned consideration” to all the evidenc e. Mezvrishviliv. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 4 67 F .3 d 1 29 2, 12 97 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 6) ; Antipo va

v. U. S. Att’ y

Gen. , 3 92 F .3 d 1 25 9, 12 65 (1 1th Cir. 2004). Contrary to Marini’s argument, rema nd on this issue is not nece ssary . Both the B IA and the IJadequately

explained the reasons for the conclusions that relocation was a n option. Theref

ore, the issue is properly

before this court for

appellatereview. 9 A s s u m in g th a t M a r in i e s tab lis h e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t a s s e r ts 4 thatthere i s e vi dence t o rebutthe pres um pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n b y s h o w in g it w a s r e a s o n ab le f o rM a r in i to r e lo c a te . T he B I A ha s c ons true d the r e gul a t i ons t o r e qui r e tha ta n a s y l um appl i c a nt show thatshe f

ac es a threa tof future per se cut i on coun try -w i de. M att erof A cost a, 19 I . & N . D e c . 211, 235 ( B I A 1985) ; s e e a l s o M a z a r i e gos v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 27 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( up ho l di ng the i m po si t i on of a “ coun try -w i de” re qu i re m ent , and n ot i ng that“ i ti s notun re as on abl e t o requi re a r ef ug ee w ho has a n i nt ernal re se tt l em ental t ernat i ve i n [her] ow n cou ntryt o . . . es t abl i sh thatsuch an opt i on i s una va i l abl e . ” ) . T hus , i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rr e l oc a t i on i s a n opt i on, the I J m u s t c o n s id e rw h e th e r“u n d e ra ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s it w o u ld b e r e a s o n ab le to e x p e c tth e ap p l i c a n t[ t o r e l o c a t e ] . ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i i ) ; s e e a l s o 8 C. F. R. § 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i ) ( B ) . T he r e a r e s e ve r a l c ons i de r a t i ons r e l e va ntt o the “r e a s o n ab le n e s s ” d e te rm in a tio n , in c lu d in g :10

w he the rthe appl i c a ntw oul d f a c e othe rs e r i ous ha r m i n the pl a c e of su g g est ed rel o cat i o n ; an y o n g o i n g ci v i l stri fe w i th i n th e co u n try, adm i ni stra t i ve, ec on om i c or j ud i ci al i nfra structure; geog raph i ca l l i m i t at i on s; and soci al and cul tural constra i nt s, such as age, gend er , h eal th , an d so ci al an d fam i l i al t i es. 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 13 (b)( 3); S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 32 n. 7 (consi deri ng , i nt eral i a, th e l arg e n u m b ers o f i n t ern al l y d i sp l aced p eo p l e –an d th e resu l t i n g l ack o f access to h e a lth c a r e , e d u c a tio n , o re m p lo y m e n t –in c o n c lu d in g th a t r e lo c a tio n w ith in C o lo m b ia w a s n o t r e a s o n ab le ) . U po n revi ew , w e c on cl ud e the B IA prop er l y det erm i ned thatre l ocat i on w as a reaso n ab l e o p t i o n u n d er th e fact s o f th i s case an d g i v en th e reaso n ab l en ess c ons i de r a t i ons s e tf

or th i n the f

e de r a l r e gul a t i ons . A c c or di ng t o the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, the D e m oc r a t i c P a r ty c urr e nt l y hol ds a num be rof s e a t s i n the pa r l i a m e nt a nd, t oge the rw i th the S oc i a l i s tP a r ty , m a ke s up the m a j or i ty . T he m os tr e c e nt el ec t i on s have s ho w n an i m prov em enti n p ol i t i ca l cond i t i on s w i th o nl y i sol at ed i nc i de nt s of

vi ol e nc e . I n r e c e nty e a r s , a c c or di ng t o the r e por t s , pol i c e of f i c i a l s w ho e n g a g e d in m is c o n d u c t h a v e b e e n d is c ip lin e d , d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t it w a s u n lik e ly M a r i ni w oul d ha ve a n obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e f e a rof the pol i c e . A nd nothi ng i n the r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t lo c a l p o lic e w o u ld lo o k o rh a v e b e e n lo o k in g f o rM a r in i. A tthe r e m ova l he a r i ng, M a r i ni t e s t i f i e d tha ts he ha d l i ve d i n B e r a ta nd T i ra na w hi l e w orki ng for the D em ocra t i c a nd L egal i ty M ov em entpart i es , and there w as n o ev i d en ce th atsh e ex p eri en ced an y th reat s o r d i ffi cu l t i es w h i l e i n th o seBe causeMarini cannot e stablish eligibility for a sylum relief, shecannot meet the more 5 string e nt burden f

or withh oldingof remov al. Zheng v. U. S. Att’ y Gen. , 45 1 F .3 d 1 28 7, 12 92 (1 1th Cir. 2006). 11 ci t i es . T hu s, contra ryt o M ar i ni ’ s c l ai m s, the i ss ue of re l ocat i on w as addres se d at th e h e a r in g . A n d a t n o tim e d id th e I J o rth e B I A s h if t th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f w ith r e s pe c tt o r e l oc a t i on t o M a r i ni . A c c or di ngl y , the gove rnm e ntha s r e butt e d the p r e s u m p tio n th a t s h e w o u ld s u f f e rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . E ve n i f M a r i ni w a s note nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f unde ra the ory of

pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, she s t i l l m ay be ent i t l ed t o rel i ef i f s he ca n est abl i sh thatshe had a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. M a r i ni ’ s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony i s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the subj ec t i ve pron g. S anchez J i m enez , 49 2 F . 3d at12 32 . T he qu es t i on i s w hether her w el l -f ou nd ed fe arw as obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. F or the re as on s di sc usse d abo ve, M a r in i c a n n o t s h o w a n o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le f

e a r . T h u s , M a r in i is n o t e n title d to r e l i e f on the the ory tha ts he ha s a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 5 T h e p e t i t i o n i s DE NI E D.