[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN 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 Appeals

________________________

(July 31, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Omar Maldonado Gelves1 seeks review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeal’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his 

application for asylum, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). 2 Mr. Gelves and his 

family overstayed their visa and thereafter sought asylum and withholding of 

removal. Mr. Gelves’s only argument for relief is that he had been kidnapped by 

the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) and his family faces 

ongoing extortion attempts from the FARC. To establish eligibility for asylum, the 

asylum applicant must establish that he is a person unable or unwilling to return to 

his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 

persecution on account of” any statutorily enumerated protected grounds, 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 884, 

 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) and 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 remedies available to the alien). 

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

890 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation and emphasis omitted). Being targeted by a 

guerilla group 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 ability 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 substantial 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 

against 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., 504 F.3d 

1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).

Case: 13-10169 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

extorting money from Mr. Gelves and his family. Moreover, even though Mr. 

Gelves claimed 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 establish 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 imputed 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