FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 2 , 2006 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. 05- 16247 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 96- 100- 324 C A R L O S A D A N F L O R E Z , P e titio n e r , 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

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 2, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C a r l os A dan F l or e z pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp ea l s’ (B IA ’ s) fi nal order a ff i rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( IJ ’ s) orderFlore z does not challeng e the denial of CAT relief, a nd, there fore , has aba

ndoned this issue 1 on appeal. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

2 de ny i ng hi m a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr at i on a nd N at i o n al i ty A ct(IN A ), an drel i ef u n d er th e U n i t edN at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n a nd D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( C A T ) , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 ; 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 . W e g r a n t th e p e titio n . 1 W h e r e , a s h e r e , th e B I A d o e s n o t r e n d e rits o w n o p in io n b u t r a th e ra d o p ts th e I J ’s o p in io n , w e r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n . D -Muhum e d v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 388 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he IJ ’ s f ac tual det erm i nat i on s are re vi ew ed un der th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, a n dw e “m u s t a f f irm th e [ I J ’s ] d e c is io n if it is supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 83 -84 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n dc ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n, ori s pr e s e nti n, the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a yappl yf or a s y lu m . See 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne yG e ne r a l orthe S e c r e t a ryof H o m elan dS ec u rity h as d iscr etio n to g ra n t asy lu m if th e a li en m ee ts th e I N A ’s defi ni t i on of a “ re fugee. ” See 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(A ). A “ refu g ee” i s: [ A ]n yp e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n yc o u n tryo f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity or , i n the c a s e of

ape r s on ha vi ng no na t i ona l i ty , i s out s i de a ny c o u n tryin w h ic h s u c h p e r s o n la s t h ab itu a llyr e s id e d , an dw h o is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n dis u n ab le o ru n w illin g to a v a il hi m s e l f orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountrybe c aus e of3

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 apa rt 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 . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntc a rr i e s the bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tu to ry“r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . See A l

N aj j ar , 2 5 7 F .3 da t 1 2 8 4 . T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , the pe t i t i one rm us t , w i th s pe c i f i c a nd cr edi bl e e vi dence, es t abl i sh (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y l i st ed f a c to r , s u c h a s p o litic a l o p in io n o r( 2 ) a“w e ll- f o u n d e df e a r ” th a t th e s ta tu to r ily l i st ed fa ct or w i l l cause s uch future pers ec ut i on . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), (b). I f the pet i t i on erdem on strat es pastpers ec ut i on , he i s pre sum ed t o h ave aw el l -f ou nd ed f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on unl e s s the gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthi s pr e s um pt i on by s h o w in g af

u n d am e n ta l c h a n g e in c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e c o u n tryo rth e ab ilityto a v o idf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b yr e lo c a tin g w ith in th e c o u n try . 8 C .F .R § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t th e n h a s th e b u r d e n to d e m o n s tr a te th a t r e lo c a tio n w a s b o th p o s s ib le a n dr e a s o n ab le . See A nt i pov a v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 1259, 1264 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; se e a l

so 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 1). W he n the I Jdoe s notm a ke e xpr e s s c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ngs , w e m a yc ons i de rthe p e titio n e r ’s te s tim o n ya n de v id e n c e a s tru e . See Y ang v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 418 F . 3d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). W h en th e IJ fai l s t o m ak e fi n d i n g s reg ard i n g p ast pe r s e c ut i on, “ [ t ] he I J ’ s f a i l ur e t o m a ke thi s de t e rm i na t i on pr e c l ude s us f r om4

un dert aki ng m eani ng ful j ud i ci alre vi ew of the m er i t s of hi s order . ” See A nt i po va , 39 2 F . 3d at12 65 (r egar di ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov alcl ai m ). T he S up re m e C ou rt has s t at ed that“ [a ] courtof appeal s i s notgeneral l y e m po w er ed t o con du cta de no vo i nq ui ryi nt o the m att erbei ng re vi ew ed and t o rea ch i t s ow n con cl usi on s bas ed on such an i nq ui ry . ” IN S v. V en tu ra , 123 S . C t . 353, 355 ( 2002) ( quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “R a th e r , th e p r o p e rc o u r s e , e x c e p t in r a r e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , is to re m and t o the agency f

or addi t i on ali nv es t i gat i on or expl anat i on . ” I d. ( quot a t i ons a n dc ita tio n o m itte d ) . F irst, b ec au se th e I J d idn o t ex p re ss ly state w h eth erh e f o u n dF lo re z’s te s tim o n yto b e c r e d ib le , w e a c c e p t F lo r e z ’s te s tim o n ya n de v id e n c e a s tru e . See Y ang , 418 F . 3d a t1201. S e c ond, the r e c or d r e ve a l s the I Jf a i l e d t o m a ke af

i ndi ng r e ga r di ng w he the rF l or e z s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. I n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the I J ’ s f a i l ur e t o m a ke thi s de t e rm i na t i on pr e c l ude s us f r om unde rt a ki ng m e a ni ngf ul ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

th e m e r its o f

h is o r d e r . See A nt i

po va , 392 F . 3d a t1265. T hi r d, the I Jc onc l ude d F l or e z di d note s t abl i s h aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on b e c au s e h e d idn o t a tte m p t to r e lo c a te w ith in C o lo m b iaa n df a ile dto e x p la in h is re l uct ance t o rel ocat e. H ow ever , i f F l orez prov ed pastpers ec ut i on , the bu rden w as o n th e G o v e rn m e n t, n o t F lo r e z , to d e m o n s tr a te th a t r e lo c a tio n w a s b o th p o s s ib le a n dr e a s o n ab le . Se e i d. a t1264. T hus , w e va c a t e the B I A ’ s a nd I J ’ s de c i s i ons a ndThe IJ ’s failure to make a finding as t o past perse cution on Flore z’s asylum claim makes 2 review of his conclusions reg ardingwithholding of removal impossible as well. See A ntipova , 392 F.3d at 1265. 5 r e m a nd f orthe B I A t o m a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a nd the p o s s ib ilityth a t th e b u r d e n o f p r o o f s h if te dto th e G o v e rn m e n t. 2 P E T I T I O N G R A N T E D .