FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J AN 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 13 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 97 -3 30 -7 92

LILIAN ARACELI SOLIS, a.k .a. Oli vi a Guz m an , a.k .a. Lil ia n S ol is Vela sq ue z,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us
U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 26 , 20 11 )

Befo re BLACK, MAR CUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:Lil ia n Arace li So l i s , a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Gua te m al a, se ek s rev ie w of th e

Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA”) or de r di sm is si ng he r ap pe al of th e
Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) or de r de nyin g he r ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

un de r th e Im

m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”) an d rel ie f pu rs ua nt to th e Uni te d

N a t i on s Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e an d Oth er Cru el , In hu m an an d Deg rad i n g
Treat m en t or Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”). So li s’s wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al an d CAT cl ai m s

were ba se d on he r as se rti on s t h a t a H o nd ur an ne wsp ap er fal se ly accu se d he r of

mu r d eri ng a th ird pa rty, an d th at th e vi ct im ’s fam il y wou ld se ek to ha rm h e r i f s h e

ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a. In he r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w, So li s arg ue s th at th e BIA erre d an d

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by affi rm in g th e IJ ’s de ci si on be cau se : (1 ) “ in di vi du al s who are

m is ta ke nl y id en ti fie d as m ur de rers ” co ns ti tu te a “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up ” u nd er the
INA, an d th us qu al ify as a pr ot ect ed cl as s fo r wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al pu rp os es ; (2 )

sh e su ffi ci en tl y pr ov ed he r ris k of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on by s ub mi t t i n g ev id en ce th at a
Hon du ran ne wsp ap er fal se ly accu se d he r of m ur de r; an d (3 ) wit h reg ard to he r CAT

cl ai m , th e BIA fai le d to co ns id er al l th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e cl ai m , an d fai le d to
fin d th a t t h e I J i mp o se d a m or e st rin ge nt bu rd en of pr oo f th an is req ui red fo r CAT

rel ie f. After care fu l re vi ew, we de ny the pe ti ti on

. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d e c i s io n as th e fin al jud gm en t, un le ss th e BIA ha s

ex pr es sl y ad op te d th e IJ ’s de ci si on

. Ru iz v. Gon zal es , 47 9 F.3 d 76 2, 76 5 (1 1t h Ci r.

220 07 ). Here, th e BIA di d no t e x p r e ss ly ad op t th e IJ ’s de ci si on an d we th eref or e

rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on

. As a pr el im in ary m at te r, we m ay no t rev ie w a fin al or de r of rem ov al un le ss “ th e
al ie n has ex ha us te d all ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to th e al ie n as of rig ht .” 8

U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ). Thi s req ui rem en t is juri sd ic ti on al , an d ba rs rev ie w of cl ai m s no t
rai se d b efo re t he BIA ev en wher e th e BIA ad dr es se d th e is su e su a sp on te . Am ay aArtu nd ua ga v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 4 6 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 4 7, 12 50 -5 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). In th e

p r e se nt cas e, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on to he ar S o l i s ’s

wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cl ai m be cau se sh e fai le d to ch al le ng e the IJ ’s fin di ng th at sh e

co ul d av oi d pe rs ecu ti on by rel oc at in g wit hi n Gua te m al a. Tho ug h th at fin di ng wou ld

be su ffi ci en t to de feat he r cl ai m , se e Tan v. U.S. Att ’y

. Gen ., 44 6 F.3 d 13 69 , 13 75 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ), we co nc lu de th at BIA’s o p in io n di d no t in co rp or at e it , an d th at it

th us ha s no be ari ng on th is ap pe al

. See Ru iz , 47 9 F.3 d at 76 5 (h ol di ng th at we rev ie w

on ly th e BIA’s op in io n un le ss it ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s de ci si on ). Acco rd in gl y , we
wil l co ns id er So li s’s wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al arg um en ts

. On th e ot he r ha nd , we are
de pr iv ed of juri sd ic ti on ov er So li s’s cl ai m fo r CAT rel ie f be cau se sh e co mp l et el y
fai le d t o ra is e it be fo re t he BIA. Am ay a-Art un du ag a, 46 3 F .3d at 1 25 0- 51

. 1

Solis also asser

ted an a sy lum claim below. We lack jurisdiction to revie w that claim 1 beca use the B I A found it to be time-bar red. Sanc hez J imenez v. U.S. Att’y . Gen., 492 F .3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2007). Moreove r, Solis did not challeng e the de nial of asy lum on appeal.
3W e rev ie w th e BIA’s st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n de no vo

. Qui nc hi a v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen ., 55 2 F.3 d 12 55 , 12 58 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Und er Ch ev ro n U.S.A., In c. v. Natu ral

Res ou rce s Defen se Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 83 7 (1 98 4) , we “ m us t de fer to an
ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n of a s ta tu te it is en tru st ed wit h a dm in is te rin g
if: (1 ) th e la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e is si le nt or am bi gu ou s wit h res pe ct to th e pa rti cu la r
is su e an d (2 ) th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n is reas on ab le .” Lin v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 55 5

F.3 d 13 10 , 13 16 n.4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (em ph as is om it te d)

. Howev er, C he vr on
de fere nc e do es no t ap pl y to n on -p rece de nt ia l, si ng le m em be r de ci si on s by th e BIA

th at do no t rel y o n e x i s t i n g BIA or fed eral co ur t pr eced en t. Qui nc hi a, 55 2 F.3 d at

12 58 -5 9. In st ead , we m ay ch oo se to ap pl y “ th e le ss er le ve l of de fere nc e en un ci at ed

in Sk id m or e v. Swif

t & C o mp a n y , 32 3 U.S. 13 4, 14 0

. . . (1 94 4) ,” whi ch wou ld

pr ov id e th at a si ng le BIA m em be r’s in te rp ret at io n of a st at ut e is pe rs ua si ve au th or it y
. Id . a t 1 2 5 9

. A l t e r na ti ve ly, we co ul d rem an d to th e BIA to pe rm it it to in te rp ret th e

st at ut e in a pr eced en ti al th ree- m em be r op in io n. Id

. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s fact ua l fin di ng s u nd er th e su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e te st , Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F.3 d 12 82 , 12 86 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ), an d m us t affi rm th e
BIA’s de ci si on “ if it is su pp or te d by reas on ab le , su bs ta nt ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce

on th e reco rd co ns id ered as a who le .” Al Najjar v. Ash c r o ft, 25 7 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Und er th is te st , we vi ew

4“ th e reco rd ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s de ci si on an d dr aw al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th at de ci si on .” Ade fem i v. Ash cro ft, 38 6 F.3 d 10 22 , 10 27 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). Acco rd in gl y , to “ co nc lu de th e BIA’s de ci si on
sh ou ld be rev ers ed , we m

us t fin d th at th e reco rd no t on ly su pp or ts th e co nc lu si on , bu t

co m pe ls it .” Ru iz , 47 9 F .3d at 7 65 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. To q ua li fy fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al , an a li en m us t s ho w th at if re tu rn ed to
he r co un try, he r “ li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed in th at co un try be cau se of [h er]

race , rel ig io n, na ti on al it y , mem be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li ti cal

op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). W e in te rp ret th e INA’s “ wou ld be th reat en ed ”

la ng ua ge as req ui rin g th e pe ti ti on er to de m on st rat e th at it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at

s he wil l be pe rs ecu te d or to rtu red up on rem ov al to he r co un try. Tan , 44 6 F.3 d at

13 75

. The m or e-l ik el y -th an -n ot st an da rd is no t m et whe n th e al ie n can av oi d a fu tu re
th reat by rel oc at in g to an ot he r pa rt of th e co un try de si gn at ed f o r r e mo v a l

. Id

. An

al ie n m us t als o est ab li sh a “ ne xu s” be twee n t he fear ed pe rs ecu ti on an d a st at ut or il y

pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , su ch as m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p. San ch ez v. U.S.

Att ’y Gen ., 39 2 F.3 d 43 4, 43 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). In ot he r wor ds , th e al ie n m us t pr ov e
th at sh e wil l be pe rs ecu te d “ be cau se of ” he r m em

be rs hi p in th e gr ou p. See id

. Acts

of pr iv at e vi ol en ce do no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on ba se d on a st a tu to ril y pr ot ect ed

gr ou nd . Rui z v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 40 F.3d 12 47 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

5W e ha ve em ph as iz ed th at th e “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p ” l a n gu ag e wit hi n th e
INA’s li st of pr ot ect ed gr o u nd s sh ou ld no t se rv e as a “ ‘catch al l’ fo r al l pe rs on s
al le gi ng pe rs ec uti on who do no t fit el se whe re.” See Cas ti ll o- Aria s v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 6 F.3d 11 90 , 11 98 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Pu rs ua nt to th e BIA, a gr ou p m ay qu al ify as

a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p on ly if it ha s bo th im m ut ab il it y an d so ci al vi si bi li ty. See id

.
at 11 94 -9 7 (d efer rin g to th e BIA’s de fin i t i o n of “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” ). In

an a l y zi ng im m

ut ab il it y , th e BIA lo ok s fo r ch arac te ris ti cs th at are “ fu nd am en ta l to [g ro up ] m em

be rs ’ in di vi du al id en ti ti es or co ns ci en ces .” Id . a t 11 96 (al te rat io n an d

ci ta ti on om it te d) . Exam

pl es of su ch ch arac te ris ti cs in cl ud e se x, co lo r, ki ns hi p ti es ,

or in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , “ a s h a r e d pa st ex pe rie nc e su ch as fo rm er m il it ary
le ad ers hi p or la nd own ers hi p.” Id

. at 11 93

. W hi le pa st ex pe rie nc es are by th ei r ve ry

na tu re im m

ut ab le , “ th is fact do es no t m ean th at an y pa st e x p e r i e n c e t ha t m ay be

sh ared by ot he rs su ffi ces to de fin e a p a r t i cu la r so ci al gr ou p.” See id

. at 11 94 ( q u o t at io n an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In an al y zi ng so ci al vi si bi li ty, th e BIA lo ok s fo r
ch arac te ris ti cs th at are “ hi gh ly vi si bl e an d r e c o g n i z a bl e by ot he rs in th e co un try in

qu es ti on .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

. In th is cas e, to th e ex te nt th e si ng le -m em be r BIA pa ne l in te rp ret ed th e te rm

“ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” to ex cl ud e gr ou ps of pe rs on s m is id en ti fie d as m ur de rers by

ne wsp ap ers , we acce pt th at in te rp ret at io n as pe rs ua siv e. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly st res se d

6th at th e INA’s “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” la ng ua ge sh ou ld no t serv e as a cat ch -al l fo r

wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cl ai m s. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at be in g m is id en ti fie d by

a ne wsp ap er as a m

ur de rer fal ls ou ts id e th e cat eg or y of sh ared ex pe rie nc es th at

Co ng res s in te nd ed to pr ot ect

. Mo reo ve r, su bs ta nt ia l e v id en ce su pp or ts th e BIA’s

co nc lu si on th at So li s’s fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on was to o sp ecu lati ve to w ar ra nt re lie f.

Acco rd in gl y , th e reco rd ne it he r co m pe ls , no r su pp or ts , th e co nc lu si on th at th e BIA’s

de ci si on sh ou ld be rev ers ed

.
PETI TI ON DENI ED.

7