FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 14 07 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 73 -6 04 -3 16 FOYSAL AHAMED, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Fo y sa l Ah am ed , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof B an gl ad es h, p et it io ns forrev ie w of

th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g t he Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al an d d en y in g h is cla im s fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. Aham edarg ue s t ha t t he BIA erre d i n fin di ng th athe ha d n otsh own pa stpe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n h is po li ti cal op in io n. He al so co nt en ds th athe est ab li sh eda well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . For th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. The Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su eda Not ic e to App ear t o Aha m ed , charg in g t ha t h e was a na ti ve an d c it iz enof B an gl ad es h wh o e nt eredth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t b ei ng adm it te d o r pa ro le d b y animm ig rat io n o ffi cer. Aha m edadm it te d t he all eg at io ns in th e n ot ic e to ap pe ar an d c on ced ed rem ov ab il it y . He fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , and CAT rel ie f. Aha m ed ’s app li cat io n was ba se d o n the fol lo win g fa ct s. In19 74 , Aham ed joi ne d t he Isl am ic Stu de ntAss oc ia ti on , a gr oup a ffi li at edwit h t he Jamat Is la m po li ti cal pa rty. Aha m edserve d a s t reas ur er o f th e Stud en t As so ci at io n a nd co ll ect eddo na ti on s t o J am atIsl am fro m weal th y pe op le in th e are a. The p art y pr om is edto us e th e d on at io ns to bu il d h ou se s an d p ro vi de aidforth e n eed y . After 2a ti m e, ho wev er, the party sto pp edfol lo win g t hr ou gh on it s p ro m is es . Whe n t he

do no rs real iz edth is , th ey be cam e an gry , andth ey

th reat en edAham edan d o th er pa rty m em

be rs who ha d c ol le ct edm on ey fro m th em . Aham edtri edto return s om e of th e d on at io ns , bu t h e was un ab le to rep ay all of the m on ey

by him se lf. Aha m edbe cam e d is il lu si on edwit h J am atIsl am on acco un t o f th e p art y ’s fai lu re t o abi de by its pro m is es , so he de ci de d t o re si gn fro m th e p art y . Whe n t he pa rty lead ers lea rn edth athe was re si gn in g, t he y were an gry

be cau se he kn ew ev erythi ng ab ou t t he pa rty’ s i nt ern al affai rs . They wan te d t o e it he r ki ll Aham edor fo rce h im to rem ai n i n t he pa rty. In 19 84 , Aham edwas k id napp edby a gro up of te rro ris ts who to okhi m

to a bu il di ng at Dak ar Un iv ers it y . His k id napp ers ch ai ne d hi m up an d d idno t g iv e h im

an y foo d. Th ey

th reat en edto ki ll Aham edif h e d id no t “ gi ve [th em ] th e m on ey ba ck .” The k id napp ers bl in df ol de d Ah am edan d h it hi m wit h fi st s, b at s, an d h oc ke y st ic ks . They al so ap pl ie d h eav y weig htto Aha m ed ’s che stun ti l h e h adbl oo d i n h is m ou th . Whe n the ki dn ap pe rs saw t ha t Aha m edwas g et ti ng si ck , th ey fear edth athe wou lddi e, so th ey rel eas edhi m . Aha m edrece iv edm ed ic al tre at m en t fr om th e v il la ge ph y si ci an . Aham edrep orte d th e k id napp in g t o t he po li ce, b utth ey wou ldno t t ak e h is cas e “ [b ]ecaus e atth at ti m e, so m e o th er p art y

was i n p owe r.” Inad di ti on to th e k idnapp in g i nc id en t, Ah am edwas a tt ack edon th e st reet 3two or thr ee t im es be twee n 1 98 4 a nd19 94 an d was be at enwit h s ti ck s. Aft er ea ch

of th es e at ta ck s, Ah am edrece iv edm ed ic al tre at m en t fr om th e v il la ge do ct or . Aha m edtes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w on e o f th e at ta ck ers , bu t h e d idno t o th erwi se de sc rib e th ei r id en ti ti es or m ot iv at io ns . Aha m edlef

t Ba ng la de sh an d c am e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 99 4. He was no t ab le to bri ng hi s wi fe an d c hi ld ren wit h h im at t he ti m e. One year aft er Ah am ed le ft B an gl ad es h, p art y

m em be rs an d t he pe op le fro m who m he ha d c ol le ct ed m on ey wentto th e h ou se wher e h is wife an d c hi ld renwere s ta y in g a nd“ to ok ev erythi ng .” Inad di ti on , Aham ed ’s m ot he r rec ei ve d t hr eat s fr om “ in flu en ti al pe op le ” an d p art y

m em be rs who de m an de d t ha t t he ir m on ey be returne d. In 19 95 , Aha m ed ’s wife andch il dr encam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ah am edtes ti fie d t ha t h e co ul d n otreturn t o B an gl ad es h b ecau se th ere was no sec ur it y in th atco un try and be cau se th e in di vi du al s fr om who m he ha d c ol le ct edm on ey

were s ti ll sea rch in g fo r hi m . Tho se in di vi du al s h adti es to terro ris m an d c ou ld“ ki ll foran yth in g.” The IJ d en ie d Ah am ed ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , an d C AT reli ef. Fi rs t, t he IJ d et erm in edth atAham ed ’s tes ti m on y was n ot cred ib le . The IJals o c on cl ud edth atAham edha d fa il edto sh ow p as t p ers ecu ti on . The IJ r eas on edth atth e in ci de ntwher e Aha m edwas d et ai ne d fo r two da y s was no t s o s ev ere a s t o c on st itut e p ers ecu ti on . The IJ furth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t Ah am ed 4ha d n otli nk edth e m is tre at m en t t ha t h e ex pe rie nc edto on e o f th e p ro te ct ed

gr ou nd s fo r as y lu m . The IJ ob se rv edth atth e in ci de nt s d es cri be d b y Aham edwere m or e ak into cri m in al act s o r pe rs on al ve nd et ta s t ha n t o p ol it ic al pe rs ecu ti on . Acco rd in gl y , th e IJ de ni edAham ed ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m . Giv enAham ed ’s in ab il it y to m eetth e st an da rdforasylu m , th e IJ de te rm in edth athe co ul d n otm eet th e h ig he r st an da rdforwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Fin al ly, th e IJ de ni edAham ed ’s cl ai m forCAT rel ie f be cau se Aham edha d n otest ab li sh eda cl ear p ro babi li ty tha t he wou ldbe to rtu redby, orwit h t he acqui es cen ce o f, th e Ban gl ad es hi go ve rn m en t. Aha m edap pe al edto th e BIA, b utth e BIA d is m is se d h is ap pe al . The BI A co nc lu de d t ha t i t was un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s the IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g be cau se , eve n a ss um in g tha t Ah am ed ’s tes ti m on y was c red ib le , he h adno t s ho wn pa stpe rs ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Reg ard in g p as t pe rs ecu ti on , th e BIA d et erm in edth atAham edha d fa il edto sh ow a n ex us be twee n th e m is tre at m en t t ha t h e su ffer edan d o ne of t he pro te ct edgro un ds forasylu m . The BIA p oi nt edou t t ha t t he pa rty’ s d on or s t arg et edAham edno t b ecau se of h is po li ti cal be li efs , bu t b ecau se th ey want edth ei r m on ey

returne d. In ad di ti on , th e BIA n ot edth atth ere was no ev id en ce t ha t t he Jamat Is la m pa rty wish edto ha rm Aha m edbe cau se of h is po li ti cal op in io n. Th e BIA fu rth er co nc lu de d t ha t t he in ci de ntwher e Aha m edwas k id napp edfortwo da y s, an d t he st reetatt ack s t ha t h e 5su ffer ed , were n otso ex tre m e as to co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on . The BI A ob se rv edth at

th es e were “ rel at iv el y

is ol at edin ci de nt s, o ccu rri ng ov er a 1 0 year pe rio d.” The BIA al so de te rm in edth atAham edha d n otest ab li sh eda well -fo un de d fearof f utur e p ers ecu ti on . The BI A reas on edth atAham ed ’s ti es to Jamat Is la m were n otso si gn ifi can t o r wel l-k no wn t ha t h e wou ldbe tar ge te d b y pa rty m em

be rs orby ang ry

do no rs aft er the pa ss ag e o f m or e th an25 y ears . Giv enth atAham ed ha d n otm etth e st an da rdforasylu m , th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t h e li ke wis e was un ab le to m eetth e h ig he r st an da rdforwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Fin al ly, th e BIA up he ldth e IJ ’s den ia l o f CAT rel ie f. II. Inanimm ig rat io n c as e, we rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on , andan y po rti on s o f th e IJ ’s op in io n a do pt edby the BIA. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Here, th e BIA i ss ue d i ts own de ci si on , so we rev ie w th at de ci si on . Becau se th e BIA d idno t ad op t t he IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, we ne edno t co ns id er Ah am ed ’s arg um en t t ha t t he cred ib il it y fin di ng is no t s up po rte d by the reco rd . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s t o d et erm in e whe th er the y are supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ( en ba nc ). “ [W] e v ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t 6fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof

th atde ci si on .” Id
. at 1 02 7. We m ay rev ers e th e BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s o nl y when th e rec or d c om

pe ls a rev ers al . Id
. An ap pl ic an t fo r as y lu m

m us t d em on st rat e th athe is a refu ge e. INA § 2 08 (b )(1 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a). An app li can t qua li fie s as a refu ge e if

he su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on , or h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on , in hi s co un try of o rig in . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) ; Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). To es tabl is h p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m

us t s ho w th athe was p ers ecu te d i n the pa ston acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .13 (b )(1 ); Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 1. W e n eedno t d eci de th e que st io n o f whe th er o r no t Ah am edha s es tabl is he d pa stpe rs ecu ti on be cau se th e rec or d p ro vi de s ample e vi de nc e supp orti ng th e BIA’s fin di ng th e Aha m edsi m

pl y fai le d t o s ho w a ne xu s b etween th e m is tre atm en t h e sa y s h e ex pe rie nc edan d apro te ct edgro un d u nd er the st atut e. Whi le so li ci ti ng po li ti cal co nt rib ut io ns fro m do no rs , Aham edm ad e pr om is es to th em

ab ou t h ow t he m on ey

wou ldbe pu t t o u se . Whe n t he se pro m is es di d n otm at eri al iz e, th e d on or s d em an de d t he ir m on ey ba ck . Andwhen Aham ed co ul d n otco m e up wi th all of t he ir m on ey , th ey ki dn ap pe d andres tra in edhi m for 7two day s, b eat in g h im an d t hr eat en in g t o k il l h im if h e d idno t g iv e th em

th ei r m on ey ba ck . The v io le nc e d on e to Aham edwas n ota res ul t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n (o r an y

ot he r st atut or il y

pro te ct edgro un d) ; i t re su lt edfro m an gry do no rs vi ol en tl y reac ti ng to hi s fa il ur e to gi ve th em ba ck th ei r m on ey

aft er the pro m is es he m ad e were b ro ke n. Co ns eque nt ly, Aha m edis no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. . Inth e ab se nc e o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on , an app li can t m ay est ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti onby sho win g t ha t t he re i s a r eas on ab le po ss ib il it y th athe wil l b e p ers ecu te d i f he is returne d t o h is co un try of o rig in . 8 C.F.R. 20 8.1 3( b) (2 ); Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 2. Th e ap pl ic an t m us t s ho w th athi s fearof p ers ecu ti on is “ subjec ti ve ly gen ui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. Anap pl ic an t ca n s at is fy th e o bjec ti ve pro ng by sho win g th athe “ ha s a g oo d re as on to fearfutur e p ers ecu ti on .” Id
. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . To qua li fy

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al , an app li can t m us t es tabl is h t ha t h er li fe o r free do m

wou ldbe th reat en edin he r co un try of o rig in on acco un t o f a st atut or il y

pro te ct edgro un d. Se e INA § 2 41 (b )(3 )(A); 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Thi s Ah am edha s fa il edto do . Aha m ed ’s fai lu re t o m eetth e st an da rdfor asylu m m ean s t ha t h e can no t sa ti sf y th e h ig he r st an da rdforwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Se e S ep ul ved a , 40 1 F .3dat 12 32 -3 3. Fi na ll y , Aham eddo es no t ch al le ng e th e BIA’s d en ia l o f hi s cl ai m for 8CAT rel ie f in hi s i ni ti al bri ef. The refo re, h e h as ab an do ne d a ny argu m en t wi th

res pe ctto th atis su e. Se e id
. at 1 22 8 n .2 (n ot in g tha t i ss ue s n otrai se d i n apa rty’ s in it ia l b rie f are de em edab an do ne d) . Accor di ng ly, aft er re vi ew of th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

9