[DO NOT PUBLISH]
I N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 10169 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087

- 389

- 841 OMAR MALDONADO GELVES, SANDRA CECILIA ARDILA MARTINEZ, NICOLAS MALDONADO ARDILA, SANTALUCIA MALDONADO ARDILA, Petitioners,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appea ls

________________________ (July 31, 2013)

Before CARNES , BARKETT , and MARCUS , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 1 of 42 Omar Maldonado Gelves 1 seeks review of the B oard of I mmigration
A ppeal ’s (“BIA”) order affirming the I mmigration J udge ’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). 2 Mr. Gelves and hi s family overstayed their visa and thereafter sought as ylum and withholding of
removal. Mr. Gelves ’s only argument for relief is that he had been kidnapped by
the Re volutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) and his family faces ongoing extortion attempts from the FARC . T o establish eligibility for asylum, the asylum applicant must establish that he is a person unable or unwilling to return to his country of national ity “because of persecution or a well

- founded fear of persecution on account of” a ny statutorily enumerated protected ground s , which
include the refugee’s political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 42)(A). To demonstrate a sufficient nexus between political opinion and alleged persecution,
an alien must show that he has been or will be persecuted “because of” his actual or imputed political opinion. Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 488 F.3d 88 4,

1 Mr. Gelves is the lead petitioner and has named his wife, Sandra Cecilia Ardila Martinez, and his children, Nicolas Maldonado Ardila and Santalucia Maldonado Ardila , as his derivative beneficiaries

. 2 The BIA’s order also affirmed the IJ’s decision withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) an d withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Mr. Gelves raises no argument on appeal that the BIA erred in denying him withholding of removal or CAT relief and therefore he has abandoned these claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). We also do not consider Mr. Gelves’s argument that his family constitutes a particular social group because he failed to seek relief on this ground before the IJ and thus has failed to exhaust this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (stating that a court may only review a final order of removal if the alien has exhausted all administrative rem edies available to the alien).

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 2 of 43 890 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation and emphasis omitted). B eing targeted by a guerilla grou p for extortion purposes does not, by itself, constitute persecution on account of political opinion. See Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 487 F.3d 815, 821

- 23 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that there was no nexus between persecution and political opinion where the FARC demanded a politically active business owner pay the FARC’s “war tax,” where the FARC targeted the petitioner (1) for extortion based on the petitioner’s abili ty to pay, (2) harmed the petitioner after refusal to pay the “war tax,” and (3) never demanded that the petitioner cease political activities). Here, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Mr. Gelves ’s application for asylum because substanti al evidence supported the BIA’s
determination that Mr. Gelves was not persecuted on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. 3 That evidence includes that the FARC targeted Mr.
Gelves based on his ability to pay extortion demands and not based on his political
views ; that in kidnapping Mr. Gelves and threatening him and his family, the FARC only sought monetary payoffs; and, that the FARC made no demands regarding Mr. Gelves ’s political opinions. Furthermore, the FARC ’s threats

a gainst Mr. Gelves after his release from captivity did not constitute persecution on
account of a statutorily protected ground because the threats were in furtherance of

3 We must affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 50 4 F .3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted)

.

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 3 of 44 extorting money from Mr. Gelves and his family. Moreover, even though Mr.
Gelves clai med that the FARC tried to indoctrinate and recruit him, his refusal to cooperate with the guerillas was insufficient to establish that he was persecuted due to his political opinion. See Rodgriguez Morales , 488 F.3d at 890

. Mr. Gelves
has failed to esta blish any of his political beliefs, imputed or personal, drove the FARC’s persecution of him and his family. Accordingly, because Mr. Gelves did not establish a nexus between past persecution or a well

- founded fear of future persecution and his actual or i mputed political belief, he has failed to establish his eligibility for asylum.
PETITION DENIED. Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 4 of 4