FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 12, 2008 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. 07- 11127 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 98- 674- 118 A N T O N I O L I T A N O Z A P A T A , 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 d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 12, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A nt on i o L i t ano Z apat a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f P eru, se eks r evi ew of the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i onZ apata has not raise d any

challeng e to the denial of asylum and, there fore , he has 1 waived theissue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally , Z apata

failed to exhaust his administrative reme dies with respe ct to the denial of CAT relief

, thus we lack jurisdiction to hear that issue. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1); Fernande z-Ber nal v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 257 F .3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001). Acc ording ly, we dismiss the petition in p art on the segrounds . 2 Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) order of re m ov al and d eni al of as yl um , 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (1), w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C on vent i on on T orture ( “ C A T ”) , 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c ). A ft era tho roug h revi ew 1 of the r e c or d, w e de nythe pe t i t i on. W e “r e v ie w o n lyth e [ B I A ’s ] d e c is io n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” A l -N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . I f

th e B I A a d o p ts th e I J ’s o p in io n , w e w ill r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s w e ll. I d . L e g a l d e te rm in a tio n s a r e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he IJ ’ s and B IA ’ s “ fi nd i ng s of f ac tar e r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t,” a n d w e m u s t a f f irm th e d e c is io n “if i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord c o n s id e r e d a s aw h o le .” A n tip o v av . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . U n d e rth is h ig h lyd e f e r e n tia l s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , a d e n ia l o f r e lie f m a yb e r e v e r s e d o n lyif th e e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l ar e a s o n ab le fact fi n d er t o co n cl u d e th atth e req u i si t e fear o f p ersecu t i o n ex i st s. IN S v . E l i asZ a c a r ia s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n .1 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 n .1 , 1 1 7 L .E d .2 d 3 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) .We note that the IJdid not make an explicit adversecre dibility finding , as re quired 2 under Y angv. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). B eca use the IJdid not make a specificfindingas to cre dibility, we presume Z apata ’s testimony to be credible. 3 “ T o c onc l ude tha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on s houl d be r e ve r s e d, w e m us tf i nd tha tthe re co rd n o t o n ly su p p o rts th e c o n clu sio n , b u t co m p els it. ” N iftali ev v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 504 F . 3d 1211, 1215 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he f

a c ttha te vi de nc e i n the r e c or d m a ya l s o s upportac onc l us i on c o n tr a ryt o th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e f i n d i n g s i s n o te n o u g h t o j u s t i f yar e v e r s a l . A d e f

e mi v . A s h c r o f

t, 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . Z apat a argues thathe es t abl i shed el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al b ased o n u n co n trad i ct ed , cred i b l e ev i d en ce th ath e h ad b een th e v i ct i m o f p ast pers ec ut i on . S peci fi ca l l y, he as se rt s thathe w as foun d cre di bl e and t es t i fi ed that th e M a t a c ab r a s , ag r o u p th a tt a r g e t e d a n d a tt a c k e d h o mo s e x u a l s a n d w h o s e n a me r o u g h l y tr a n s l a t e d t o “ k i l l i n g g a yp e o p l e , ” th r e a t e n e d h i s l i f e o n two o c c a s i o n s . On th e s e c o n d o c c a s io n , ag r o u p o f k n if e - w ie ld in g M a ta c ab r a s th r e a te n e d to k ill h im a nd ac o- w orke r , c ha s e d the m , a nd s t oppe d onl ya f t e ras tr a nge rf

i r e d agun i n the a irto s c a r e th e M a ta c ab r a s a w a y . T o qua l i f yf orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A , a n a l i e n m us ts how tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha t , i f r e turne d t o hi s c ountry , hi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 327 2Niftaliev v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F .3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2007). 4 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ); se e a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3). “ A n al i en bears the bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d or to rtu r e d u p o n h is r e tu rn to th e c o u n tryin q u e s tio n .” M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . T h e a lie n c a n m e e t h is b u r d e n b ys h o w in g e ith e r : ( 1 ) “p a s t p e r s e c u tio n in h is c o u n tryb a s e d o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d ,” in w h ic h c a s e ar e b u ttab le p r e s u m p tio n is c r e a t e d tha thi s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i f he r e turne d t o hi s c ountry ; or ( 2 ) “ af u tu r e th r e a tt o h i s l i f

e o rf r e e d o m o n ap r o t e c t e d g r o u n d i n h i s c o u n try . ” Al N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. A l though the r e gul a t i ons do note xpr e s s l yde f i ne “p e r s e c u tio n ,” th is c o u rt h a s o b s e rv e d th a t “p e r s e c u tio n is a n e x tr e m e c o n c e p t, re qu i ri ng m ore than a few i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on . ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i ons o m i tt ed ). T h i s co u rt , h o w ev er, h as rej ect ed a ri g i d req u i rem en to f p h ysi cal i n j u ry, m a ki ng c l e a rtha t“ a tt e m pt e d m ur de ri s pe r s e c ut i on, ” r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe pe t i t i one rw a s i nj ur e d a nd e ve n i f the a tt a c k i s uns uc c e s s f ul . S a nc he z J i m e ne z v. U . S. A tt ’ yG e n . , 4 9 2 F. 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 1 - 3 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a l s o M e j i av . U . S. A tt’yG e n ., 4 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 2 5 7 n .7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e x te n d in g th e ru le in S a n c h e z J im e n e z to o th e rp r o je c tile s s u c h a s r o c k s ) . He r e , e v e n a s s u m i n g , a s we m u s t , th a tZ ap a t a ’ s t e s t i m o n ywa s c r e d i b l e , we a r e n o t com

pel led t o con cl ud e thathe suff er ed pastpers ec ut i on . Z apat a i dent i fi es5

tw o i nc i de nt s of

ha r a s s m e nta nd i nt i m i da t i on, butthe s e e ve nt s do notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on unde rourpr e c e de nt . B e i ng c ha s e d bym e n c a rry i ng kn i ves and shou t i ng epi thet s does notequat e w i th att em pt ed m urder. M oreover, m e r e d is c r im in a tio n a g a in s t h o m o s e x u a ls d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . S e e , e .g ., G o n z a le z v . R e n o , 2 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . M or e ove r , Z apa t aha s nots how n “ af utur e thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound i n hi s c ountry . ” W e not e tha tZ apa t aw orke d f oragove rnm e nt a g e n c y p r o v id in g in f

o rm a tio n a n d e d u c a tio n to th e g a yc o m m u n ity . A n d Z ap a ta a dm i tt e d dur i ng the r e m ova l he a r i ng tha t , s i nc e hi s de pa rtur e f r om P e ru, the c ountryc ondi t i ons ha ve i m pr ove d. T hus , Z apa t aha s nots how n af utur e thr e a ton a c c o u n t o f

h is s ta tu s a s ah o m o s e x u a l. A c c o r d in g ly , b e c au s e th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t com pel u s to c o n c lu d e th a t Z ap a ta wa s e n t i t l e d t o wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , we DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. DI SM I SS ED I N PART; DENI ED I N PART.