### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 29, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1493 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 79- 346- 908 JOANA CLAUDIA SEPULVEDA, MAURIC IO SEPULVEDA, Pe tit ion er s,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 29 , 200 4) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Joana C. Sepulveda, a Colom bian nation al, petition s for re view of the f inal
or de r of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( BI A ) af fi rm ing w ith out

opi nio n th eSe p u lv e d a d o e s n o t r a is e any c h a ll e n g e in h e r b r ie f to th e d e n ia l o f r e li e f under the 1 Conv e n ti o n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( CA T )
. Wh e n an a

p p e ll an t f a il s to o f f e r ar gume n t o n an issue , that issue is abandone d. See United States v. Cunningham , 16 1 F .3 d 13 43 , 13 44 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) ; see als o Gree nbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster , 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (1 1 t h C i r. 1989) ( stating that passingref

ere nces to issues ar e insuffic ient to raise a claim for appea l, and such issues ar e dee med abandone d). 2 Im m igr at ionJud ge ’ s ( IJ ’ s) de nia l of he r re que sts f

or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of
re m ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ionand N at ion al ity A ct ( IN A ). 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1 158,

1 1231 (b)(3). Sepulveda argues the BI A’ s affir m ance of the I J’ s denial of her application d em onstrates an adversarial tone and a unilaterally -heightened
s t a n d a r do f

a d j u d i c a t i o n f

o r C o l o mb i a n a s yl u m c l a i ms , i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e S up r e me Co urt’ s de ci sio n in INS v. Cardoza -F onseca , 480 U
. S. 421 , 107 S
. Ct
. 120 7 (1 987)
. S ep ulv ed a as se rt s sh e es ta bli she d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n
ac co u n to f h erp o l i t i ca l o p i n i o n an dac t i v i t y. Se p u l v ed a a l s o ch al l en g es th e I J ’s fi ndi ng tha t i nte rn al r el oc at ionw as avia ble opt ion
. S ubst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports th e IJ ’s dec is io n. We den y th e p et it io n. I. BACKGROUND Se pul ve daand h er

hus band e nte re d th e U nit ed S ta te s onS ep te m

be r 11, 2000 , a s vi sit or s w ithpe rm iss ionto re m ai n un til Marc h 10 , 200 1. O n Augus t 16 , 2001 , the I N S se rv ed

S ep ulv ed a w ithanot ic e to a ppe ar , c harg ing he r w ith
rem ov ab il it y

forha vi ng rem ai ne d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s b ey on d t he ti m e al lo wed
. Sepulveda adm itted the allegations of the notice to appear and concededTh e Natio na l L ibe ratio n Army , o r E L N, is on e of

Col omb ia ’s tw o ma

jor gue ri lla g ro up s. 2 Th e State De pa

rtme nt’ s 1 99 9 Co untr

y Re po rt on Human Ri g hts P ract ice s for Col omb ia 3 descr ibed this kidnaping a s the abduc tion of 170 people fr om L a Mar ia chur ch by the EL N. 3 rem ovabili ty . Sepulveda requested asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and relief unde r the CA T on b eh al f of he rs el f an d he r husb an d. Se pul ve date sti fi ed

he r pr o- de m oc ra cy

ide olo gy c onf lic te d w iththat of

the ELN gu eri ll a g ro up , whi ch ad vo cat edcla ss st ru gg le , Marx is m , anddi ct at or sh ip
. 2 Sepulveda, a resident of Cali, Colom bia, belonged to a group at her univ ersity that initiallyorganized politi cal debates, and later organized m arches and peace de m on st rat io ns . Sep ul ve da pa rti ci pa te d i n app ro xi m at el y ten pe ace m arch es . Whe n th e “ L a Mari a” m as siv e kidna pin g oc curr ed , S ep ulv ed a an d gr oup 3
m em be rs c oope rate d w ithapr ie st t o ne got iate be tw ee n th e kidna pe rs and the host ag es ’ f

am ili es . A ft er

be co m ing inv olv ed

in the kidna

pin g ne got ia tio ns, Se pul ve dar ec ei ve d th re e thr eate nin g te le phon e ca lls a t he r hom e, and the gr oup
rece iv edsi m il ar ca ll s at th e o ffi ce. The cal le rs , id en ti fy in g t he m se lv es as ELN
m em bers, called Sepulveda by nam e, used profanity , dire cted her to stop her peace
ac tiv iti es , and m ad e de ath th re at s. Many of the gr oup m em

be rs qui t, and the group’s m em

bership ult im ately

dwindled from

35 to 5. The group also placed

“ m ai lbo xe s” w ith in r es taur an ts t o f ac ili ta te c om

m uni catio n be tw ee n th e kidna pe rs , their hostages, victim s’ fam ilies, and the public. O ne of the m ailboxes was locatedSe pu lve da te sti fi e d th at in

Col omb ia , s uc h thre ats e xten d to fa mil y me mbe rs . 4 4 in the restaurant w here S epulveda was em ploy ed, and a bom

b placed in that
ma i l b o x e x p l o d e dj u s ta f

t e r s h e f i n i s h e dh e r

s h i f t . S e p u l v e d ab e l i e v e dth e b o mb
w as r el at ed

to he r pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s. B ef or e co m ing to the U nit ed S ta te s, Se pul ve dar el oc at ed

to he r pare nts ’ hom e in H am ondi , Co lom bia , and h er

in- law s’ hom e in Cali, Colom

bia. Sepulveda testified she fear ed the ELN guerilla group would kill her or her fam il y if t he y returne d t o C ol om

bi a. Thi rte en y ears earl ie r, Sep ul ve da ’s un cl e, a j udge, rec eived death threats relate d to a drug trafficking case. T he uncle’ s wife
w as kil le d w he n th e co upl e dis re gard ed the thr eats. S ep ulv ed a be lie ve d th e

4 Co lom bian auth or iti es w oul d no t a ssi st h er unl es s sh e ha d m one y

or the nam es of th e sp eci fic in di vi du al s i ss ui ng th e th reat s. Insup port of

he r ap pli catio n f

or r el ie f, S ep ulv ed a subm itt ed an a sy lum application setti ng forth the basis o f her c laim generally consistent with her testim ony . Sepulveda particularly noted in h er a

pplication that her brother
rece iv edth reat s fr om

ELN m em

be rs wit h re ga rdto he r po li ti cal act iv it y . The r ecord before the IJ also included th e State De partm ent’ s 1999 Country Report on Hum an Rights Practices f or Colom bia. T he 1999 Country

Report stated that C olo m

bia ’ s tw o m aj or

gue ri lla gr oups , F A RC and E LN , e xe rc ise d si gni fi cant5

inf lue nc e in n earl y

1, 000 of the c ountry ’ s 1, 085 m

uni ci pa lit ie s. I t de sc ri be d th e ab duc tio n of

170 pe opl e fr om

L a Mari a chur chby

the E LN , and a

de m onstratio n in C al i by 70, 000 to 2 50, 000 pe opl e pr ote sti ng the m as s ki dna pin g. T he 199 9 Country Report also noted that as m any as six m illion people m arched in antiwar protests in October of that y ear. The S tate D epartm ent’ s 2000 Country Report on Hum an Rights Practices fo r Co lum

bia de sc ri be d th e E LN ’ s c om m on a buse of non co m ba tants , inc lud ing the
use of kidna pin g a s apr im ar

y sourc e of m one y , and e m

plo ym en t of

bom bs t o destroy fac ilities and in tim idate targeted individuals. T he 2000 Country Report ind ic at ed that a s m any

a s on e m ill ionpe opl e ha ve be endis pla ce d w ith in C olo m bia sin ce 199 6, and n ote d th e fl ood of dis pla ce d pe rs ons ha s ov er w he lm ed the
ca pa ci ty of sm al le r m

uni ci pa lit ie s and l ar ge r ci tie s to pr ovi de se rv ic es , le av ing di sp la cedin di vi du al s wi th ou t h eal th care , edu cat io n, o r em pl oym en t. The I J denied Sepulveda’s a pplication for asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval and CAT relief

. The I J found th e following: (1) neither Se pulv eda nor her husb an d ha d su ff

er ed pa st p er se cu tio n, ( 2) S ep ulv ed a fa ile d to e sta bli sh s he suffere d past m istreatm ent on account of any protected ground, or that any one had the inc lin at ionto pe rs ec ute he r, and ( 3) S ep ulv ed a fa ile d to m ee t he r bur de n to show that internal flight alternatives wer e unavailable to her. Having determ ined6

that she failed to m eet the lowe r burden of proof for a sy lum eligibilit y , the I J
co nc lud ed

that S ep ulv ed a w as ine lig ibl e fo r w ith hol din g of r em ova l. F ina lly , the IJr ej ec te d S ep ulv ed a’ s C A T r el ie f cl ai m on the gr ound s sh e fa ile d to sho wshe would likely

suffer torture upon h er r eturn to Colom bia, or that the C olom

bian
au t h o ri t i es ac qu i es ce dt o th e g u er i l l a a ct i o n . S ep u l v ed a ap p ea l edth e B IA ’s de ci si on , whi ch affi rm edth e IJ ’s dec is io n wi th ou t o pi ni on . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whe n th e BI Asum

m ar ily a ff irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out an op ini on, the IJ ’s dec is io n b ecame the fin al rem ov al ord er s ub ject t o re vi ew. See Mendoza v. U
. S. A tto rne

y G en . , 327 F
. 3d 1 283, 128 4 n. 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. T he I J’ s f ind ing s of fa ct are r ev ie w ed

und er the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st, and w e “ m ust a ff irm the [IJ’ s] decision if it is supported byrea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the record considered as a whole.” A l N ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 257 F
. 3d 1 262, 128 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). U nde r thi s hi ghl y de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , the I J’ s de ci sio n c anbe r ev er se d on ly if the
ev id en ce “ co m

pe ls ” a rea so nabl e fac t fi nd er t o fi ndot he rwis e. INS v. E lia s- Za ca ria s , 50 2 U.S. 4 78 , 48 1 n .1, 1 12 S. Ct. 8 12 , 81 5 n .1 (1 99 2)
. III. ASYLUM7

A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or
as y lum , w hic h th e A tto rn ey G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t i f the a lie n m ee ts the IN A ’ s de fi nit ionof

a“ re fu ge e. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). A“ re fu ge e” is any person who is outs ide any country of such person’ s nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e an y c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua lly r es ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or herself of the protec tion o f, that country because of pe rse cu tio n or a we ll- fou nde d fe ar o

f pe rse cu tio n on ac co unt of ra ce , r el igi on, na ti on al it y , m em be rsh ip i n a p art ic ula r so ci al g roup , or p oli tic al op in io n. 8 U
. S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tut or

y “ re fu ge e” status and the re by e sta bli shi ng a sy lum el ig ib il it y . A l N

ajj ar , 257 F. 3d at 128 4. I f he or she m eets that burden, the ac tual gr an t o f as y lu m

is a m at te r of

di sc ret io n. I

d. T he Attorney

Ge neral’ s discretionary j udgm ent whether to grant asy lum “ shall be conclusi ve unless m anifestly contrary to th e la w andan ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(4 )(D). T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity

ba se d onpol iti ca l op ini on o r gr oup
m em be rs hip , the a lie n m

ust , w ithc re dib le e vid en ce , e sta bli sh ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n on account of her political op inion or group m em bership, or (2) a “ we ll-founded fear ” th athe r po li ti cal op in io n o r gr ou p m em be rs hi p wi ll cau se fut ur e p ers ecu ti on . 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(a), (b ). “ [A ] n a ppl ic an t m

ust de m onstrate that hi s or

he r fe ar of persecution is su bje ctively genuine and ob

j ectively rea sonable.” A l N

ajj ar , 2578

F. 3d at 12 89. A lth oughthe I N Adoe s no t e xpr es sly de fi ne “pe rs ec uti on” f

or purpos es of qualify ing as a “ refugee, ” see 8 U
. S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) , in Gonzalez v. R en o , 212 F
. 3d 1 338, 135 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio ns
o mi t t e d ) , w e d i s c u s s e do t h e r c i r c u i t s ’ h o l d i n g s th a t“p e r s e c u t i o n ” i s an “e x t r e me
co nc ep t, ” re qui ri ng “ m or e than af ewiso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or intim idation ,” and that “ [m ] ere harassm ent does no t am ount to persecution.” A showing of past persecution create s a presum ption of a “ we ll-founded fear ,” subject to r ebuttal by the IN S. 8 C. F. R § 208.13(b)(1). A“ we ll-founded fe ar ” of pe rs ec uti on m ay

a lso be e sta

bli she d by

sho w ing ar ea sona

ble pos sib ili ty of personal persecution that cannot be avoided byrelocating within the subject
co untry . 8 C
. F. R § 208
. 13( b) (2 )( ii)
. T o e sta bli sh the ne ce ssary

c au sa l c onne ct ion be tw ee n th e pol iti ca l op ini on and the f eare d pe rs ec uti on, “ the a lie n [ m ust ] pr es en t specific, detailed fac ts sho wing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singl ed out for persec ution on account of such an op inion .” A l N ajj ar , 257 F
. 3d at 12 87 (quotation m arks and citations om itted). W e have stated that “ wher e the alleged persecutors are not affiliated w ith the go vernm ent, it is not unreasonable to require
a re fu ge e w ho h as an in te rn al r es ettle m en t a lte rn at ive in his ow n c ountry to pur sue that op tio n be fo re se ek ing pe rm an en t r es ettle m en t i n th e U nit ed S ta te s, or

a t l ea st9

to establish that such an opt ion is u navailable.” M azar ie gos v. O ffi ceof U
. S. A tto rne y G en . , 24 1 F .3d13 20 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). As a prelim inary

m atter, there is no indication in the record that the IJ ap pli ed an in co rr ec t st an dard

in ad j udi catin g S ep ulv ed a’ s c la im
. T hus, Se pul ve da ’ s arg um en t tha t the I J’ s de ci sio n vi olate d th e Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Cardoz a-Fonseca , 480 U
. S. 421 , 107 S
. Ct
. 120 7 ( 1987 ), is w ith out m er it. Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at S ep ulv ed a did

not
es ta bli sh s he suf

fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of he r pol iti ca l op ini on o r gr oup memb e r s h i p . Th e e v i d e n c e mer e l y pe rm its , but doe s no t compel , the c onc lus ion the restaurant bom

bing wa s directed at Se pulv eda on account of her political act iv it y . Se e E lia s- Za ca ria s , 502 U. S. at 481 n.1, 112 S. Ct. at 815 n.1. L ikewise, the m en ac ing te le phon e ca lls and thr eat t o he r br oth er do n ot n ec es sari ly

r ise to the le ve l o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on . See G onza lez , 21 2 F .3dat 1 35 5. Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at S ep ulv ed a did

not establish a reasonable poss ibilityof personal persecution that cannot b e avoided by r el oc at ing w ith in the sub j ec t c ountry . T he e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l the
co nc lus ionthat the E LN r et ai ns an in cl inatio n to sin gle out S ep ulv ed a fo r pe rs ec uti on. A lth oughthe e vid en ce sho w s th at S ep ulv ed a ex er ci se d le ad er shi p in the non vio le nc e m ove m en t whil e a uni ve rs ity stu de nt, part ic ularl y

in 1999 , theTo the e xtent th e I J b a se d his de c isi on on a fi nd ingthat Se pu lve da

c ou ld v ia bly re loc ate 5 to an area where the EL

N presence was nonex istent or m inimal, the evidence does not support such a finding . The 1999 a

nd 2000 Country Reports, on which the I J ostensibly relied, make cle ar that guerillas exerc ise influence throug hout Colom bia , a n d th a t s mall and larg e municipalities are alre ady ov e rwhe lme d b y

the hu g e po pu latio ns of

dis pla c e d p e rs on s, wh o a re c on se qu e ntl y

wi tho ut a c c e ss to health ca

re, e ducation, or e mploy

ment. Neve rtheless, Sepulveda ’s inability to demonstrate she has a w ell-founde d fea

r t h at s h e wi ll be single d o ut for pe rsec ution on account of any protec ted g round is fata l to her asylum claim. 10 ev ide nc e doe s no t i ndi cate that he r not or ie ty a s an a ct ivi st w oul d ou tla st h er ne ar ly fo ur -y ear ab se nc e fr om

Co lom bia
. R athe r, the 199 9 C ountry Re port i ndi cate d Se pul ve da ’ s op posi tio n to gue ri lla vio le nc e w as share d by

hun dr ed s of

tho usands of pe opl e in C al i, and m ill ion s aro und Co lom bia , w ho m ar ch ed

in pr ote st. 5 The r ecord evidence does not com pel a finding that Sepulv eda established her pri m a fa ci e el i g i b i l i t y fo r a s ylu m . Th u s , s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e I J ’s d e n i a l o f a s yl u m. IV. W ITHHOLDING O F REMOVAL An alien is entitled to withhold ing of rem oval und er the INAif she can showthat he r “ lif

e or f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d [ on a cc ount of ] r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a particular social group, or political opin ion.” 8 U
. S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 )( A ). T he a lie n be ar s th e bur de n of de m onstratin g th at

it is

“ m or e lik el y

than no t” she w ill be pe rs ec ute d or tor tur ed upo n be ing r et

ur ne d to he r co un try. F

ahi m v . U
. S. A tto rne

y G en . , 278 F
. 3d 1 216, 121 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2) (quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T his is a m or e str ing en t st an dard than f or11

as y lu m . M

azar ie gos , 241 F. 3d at 132 5 n.2. “ [I] f an applicant is unable to m eet the w el l- fo unde d f

ear standard

f or a sy lum , he is ge ne ra lly

pr ec lud ed

f ro m qualify ing for either asy lum or w ithho lding of deportation.” Id

. ( quot at ionm ar

ks
an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. Se pul ve daf

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of pol iti ca l op ini on o r gr oup m em be rs hip to supp ort he r as y lum c la im , and thus she c annot

e sta bli sh s he is en tit le d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l un de r the I N A
. T he IJ ’ s de ci sio n de ny ing a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l i s su

ppor te d by subs tantial evidence. PETITION DENIED.