### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS ELE VENTH CI RCUI T D E C E M B E R 22, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 06- 13812 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 98- 395- 412 & A 98- 395- 413 A U R A E M I L S E Z A P A T A - P O R R A S , I S A B E L C R I S T I N A O L A Y A - Z A P A T A , P e titio n e r s , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r22, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P et i t i on er s A ura E m i l se Z apat a- P orra s ( “ Z apat a” ) and her daugh t er , Is abel2

C ri st i na Z apat a, nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of C ol om bi a, S . A . , arri ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es on June 16 , 20 02 , and A ug ust10 , 20 02 , re spec t i vel y, and w er e a dm i tt ed as non- i m m i gr a ntvi s i t or s f orpl e a s ur e , w i th author i z a t i on t o r e m a i n f orape r i od not t o e xc e e d F e brua ry 9, 2003. T he y di d notl e a ve w i thi n tha tpe r i od, a nd on J une 24, 2002, Z apa t a , on be ha l f of he r s e l f a nd he rdaught e r , f

i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct ( “I N A ” ) , 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 , 12 31 , and rel i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “C A T ” ) , 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ) . I n the a s y l um appl i c a t i on, Z apa t aa s s e rt e d tha ts he w a s pe r s e c ut e d by the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F orce s of C ol om bi a ( F A R C ) on accountof her pol i t i ca l opi ni on. S he r e pr e s e nt e d tha ts he w a s am e m be rof the C om m uni ty M othe rof the W el fare A sso ci at i o n i n B el l o , C o l o m b i a, an d h ad t o l eav e th e asso ci at i o n b ecau se s h e r e c e iv e d d e a th th r e a ts f r o m th e F A R C . W h e n s h e r e f u s e d to c o llab o r a te w ith the F A R C , the F A R C , on June 1, 20 02 , decl ar ed her a mi l i t ary t ar getand a po l i t i ca l e ne m y . D ur i ng he rl a s ttw o m onths i n C ol om bi a , i n the C i ty of M e de l l i n, the F A R C thr e a t e ne d he rda i l y vi athe t e l e phone ; t o e s c ape the thr e a t s , s he c a m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es . S he di d n otfi l e heras yl um appl i ca t i on w i thi n o ne ye araf t er a rr i v i n g b e c au s e s h e p l a n n e d t o r e tu rn t o Co l o mb i a . Bu t , w h e n th e FA RCZ apata rente d her Colombian re sidencebefore she le ft for theUnited States, and after 1 she left Colombia, the person occupy ing thehouse beg an to re ceivephone calls once or twicea day askingfor her. 3 c o n tin u e d to a s kab o u t h e r a n d c o n d itio n s in C o lo m b iaw o r s e n e d , s h e d e c id e d to 1 s e e ka s y l u m. P e t i t i one r s w e r e pl a c e d i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a nd on J a nua ry 12, 2005, a nd I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( I J ) he l d a n e vi de nt i ary he a r i ng on the i rappl i c a t i on f or a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n d C A T r e lie f . T h e I J d e n ie d th e ap p lic a tio n in ful l . P et i t i on er s app ea l ed the rul i ng t o the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( B IA ), c ha l l e ngi ng the de ni a l of a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . O n J une 12, 2006, the B IA adop t ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on and aff i rm ed. O n Jul y 11, 20 06 , they pet i t i on ed th i s c o u rtf

o rr e v i e w. I. T he G ove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe P e t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y a n e xc e pt i on t o the one - y e a rf i l i ng r e qui r e m e nt for a sy l um appl i ca t i on s. T he P et i t i on er s do n otaddres s thi s i ss ue i n thei r bri ef ; r a th e r , th e y f

o c u s o n th e m e r its o f

th e a s y lu m c la im . A n a s y l um appl i c a t i on m us tbe “ f i l e d w i thi n one y e a ra f

t e rthe da t e of

the a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 (a )( 2)(B ). A n u nt i m el y app l i ca t i on “ m aybe consi dere d . . . i f the al i en d e m o n s tr a te s . . . e ith e rth e e x is te n c e o f c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h m a te r ia lly4

a f f e c tthe appl i c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o th e d e l a y i n f

i l i n g a n ap p l i c a t i o n . . . . ” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . N o c ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe al i en fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e c hang ed ci rc um st ance s or e xtra ordi naryci rc um st ance s th a two u l d e x c u s e th e u n t i m e l y f i l i n g o f h e ra s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n . S e e I NA § 208( a ) ( 3) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) ( pr ovi di ng tha t“ [ n] o c ourts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny de t e rm i na t i on of the A tt orne y G e ne r a l unde rpa r a gr aph (2)” ); se e a l so M endo zav. U . S . A tt orney G en. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o tin g th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) “d iv e s ts o u rC o u rt o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w ad e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie d w ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it o re s tab lis h e d e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld e x c u s e [ h e r ] u n tim e ly fi l i ng ”) . T hi s j uri sdi ct i on al bar app l i es even aft erthe enactm entof the R ea l ID A ct of 20 05 , P ub . L . N o. 10 9-13 , 11 9 S t at . 23 1. S ee C hacon-B ot er o v . U . S . A tt orney G en ., 4 2 7 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th at “w e c an n o t rev iew th e I J’s and B IA ’ s deni al of C hacon-B ot er o’ s a sy l um cl ai m , even consi deri ng the changes in th e R e a l I D A c t” b e c au s e “[ t]h e tim e lin e s s o f a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n is n o t a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im o rq u e s tio n o f la w c o v e r e d b y th e R e a l I D A c t’s c h a n g e s ” ) . P et i t i on er s c on ce de thatthey f ai l ed t o see k asy l um w i thi n o ne ye araf t er a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s , an d th e I J , a n d th u s th e B I A , f o u n d th a t th e y f

a ile d to sa t i sf y an except i on t o the on e- ye arfi l i ng re qu i re m ent . W e there fore l ac k5

ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th a t f in d in g , a n d th e p e titio n is d is m is s e d to th e e x te n t th a t it s e e k s r e v ie w o f

th e d e n ia l o f

P e titio n e r s ’ a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . W e tu rn , th e n , to wh e th e rP e t i t i o n e r s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a f f o r d e d wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l o rC AT re l i ef . II . W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha ti te xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . “ I n s o f a ra s th e B o a r d a d o p t s th e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g , we r e v i e w th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n a s we l l . ” I d . T h e B I A d i d s o i n th i s c a s e ; h e n c e , we r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on. T o the e xt e nttha tthe I J ’ s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, our r e v ie w is d e n o v o . D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 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 the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e s houl d “ a f f i rm the [ I J ' s ] de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w ho l e. ” F orgu e v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he f a c ttha te vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d m a y a ls o s u p p o rt ac o n c lu s io n c o n tr a ry to th e I J ’s f in d in g s is n o t e n o u g h to j ust i fya r ever sa l . S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f s he c a n s how6

tha the rl i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof he rr a c e , r e l i gi on, n a tio n a lity , m e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . Me n d o z a , 3 2 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 8 7 ; s e e a l s o I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . “ An a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha t[ s he ] m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon [ he r ] r e turn t o the c ountry i n que s t i on. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . I f the a l i e n de m ons tr a t e s pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, i ti s pr e s um e d tha the rl i f e or f r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i n the f utur e unl e s s the gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthe p resu m p t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b )(1 )(I). If, h o w ev er, th e al i en d o es n o test ab l i sh pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, s he be a r s the bur de n of s how i ng tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n not th at(1 ) sh e w o u l d b e p ersecu t ed o n acco u n to f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al 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, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on; a nd ( 2) s he c oul d not avoi d a future threa tt o h erl i fe or fr ee do m by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther partof her c o u n try , if

u n d e ra ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s it w o u ld b e r e a s o n ab le to e x p e c t r e lo c a tio n . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2); se e a l so M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at12 87 (f i nd i ng that “[ a ]n a lie n w h o h a s n o t s h o w n p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th o u g h , m a y s till b e e n title d to w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l i f

[ s he ] c a n de m ons tr a t e af utur e thr e a tt o [ he r ] l i f

e or f r e e d o m o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d in [ h e r ] c o u n try ” ) . I n di s c us s i ng a n a l i e n’ s a l l e ge d pe r s e c ut i on by the F A R C on a c c ountof pol i t i c a l opi ni on, w e ha ve he l d:7

T o q u al i fy fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al b ased o n p ersecu t i o n b y a g u eri l l a g ro u p o n acco u n to f a p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n , [a p et i t i o n er] m u st es t abl i sh thatthe gu er i l l as pers ec ut ed her or w i l l se ek t o p er se cut e her in th e f u tu r e b e c au s e o f

h e ra c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . I t is note nough t o s how tha ts he w a s orw i l l be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d due t o h er refu sal t o co o p erat e w i th th e g u eri l l as. S a nc he z v. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T o est abl i sh the neces sarycausal conn ec t i on betw ee n the po l i t i ca l o p in io n a n d th e f

e a r e d p e r s e c u tio n , th e a lie n m u s t p r e s e n t “s p e c if ic , d e ta ile d f

a c ts s how i ng agood r e a s on t o f e a rtha t. . . s he w i l l be s i ngl e d outf orpe r s e c ut i on on ac coun tof such an op i ni on . ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 87 (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). A l tho ug h the IN A do es no texpres sl y def i ne “ pers ec ut i on , ” w e r ec og ni ze that“ ‘ pers ec ut i on ’ i s an ‘ extre m e c on ce pt , ’ 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 , ’ and that‘ [m ] er e har as sm entdo es nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. ’ ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tty . G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n S e pul ve da , w e he l d tha tm e na c i ng t e l e phone c a l l s a nd thr e a t s t o the a l i e n, he rf a m i l y m e m be r s , a nd c ol l e a gue s di d notr i s e t o the le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . I d . I n thi s c a s e , w e f

i nd tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on th atP et i t i o n ers w ere n o ten t i t l ed t o w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al u n d er th e IN A b ecau se they had no tshow n thatZ apat a had suff er ed pastpers ec ut i on or thati tw as m ore l i ke l y tha n nottha tZ apa t aw oul d be s ubj e c tt o f utur e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof one8

o f th e f iv e s ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d s . F i r s t , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tZ apa t adi d not e x p e r ie n c e p a s t p e r s e c u tio n b e c au s e ( 1 ) s h e te s tif ie d th a t s h e w a s n e v e rp h y s ic a lly harm ed by the F A R C ; (2) there w as no evi dence thather husband and d augh t er s w e r e e ve rha rm e d; ( 3) a l though the s t or e w he r e he rdaught e rw orke d w a s r obbe d, P e t i t i one r s c oul d poi ntt o no e vi de nc e c onne c t i ng the r obbe ry t o the F A R C ; a nd ( 4) the thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s do notc om pe l the f i ndi ng ( c ontr a ry t o the I J ’ s f i ndi ng) tha tZ apa t ae xpe r i e nc e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. S ec on d, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s B IA ’ s f i nd i ng thatP et i t i on er s fai l ed t o m eetth ei r b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th ati tw as m o re l i k el y th an n o tth atth ey – sp ec ifically, Z ap ata, w o u ldb e p er se cu ted in C o lo m b ia b ec au se (1 ) Z ap ata’s hu sband and se ven si bl i ng s c on t i nu e t o res i de i n M edel l i n and have no tbeen h arm ed ; (2 ) Z ap at a t est i fi ed th at , aft er sh e trav el ed t o th e U n i t ed S t at es fo r th e fi rst t i m e i n 1997, s he r e turne d t o C ol om bi as e ve r a l t i m e s ; and ( 3) a l though Z apa t aa nd h e rf a m ilym o v e d s e v e r a l tim e s , th e y a lw a y s r e m a in e d w ith in th e M e d e llin m e tr o p o lita n a r e a , a n d , th e r e f o r e , d id n o t a tte m p t to r e lo c a te w ith in th e c o u n try . F i nal l y, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on thatZ apat a f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a nexus betw ee n the fe ar ed harm and a prot ec t ed grou nd . T he evi dence is c o n s is te n t w ith af

in d in g th a t th e F A R C h a r a s s e d Z ap a tad u e to h e rr e f u s a l to c oope r a t e w i th the m , r a the rtha n a ny a c tua l ori m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on. A l though9

the e vi de nc e m a y pe rm i taf i ndi ng tha tthe F A R C w a s pa rt i a l l y m ot i va t e d by Z ap a ta ’s im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n , it d o e s n o t c o m p e l s u c h af in d in g . A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the pe t i t i on a s t o thi s i s s ue be c aus e the e vi de nc e doe s not c o m p e l r e v e r s a l. II I. I n th e irb r ie f

, P e titio n e r s s ta te in o n e lin e th a t th e I J e rr e d b y d e n y in g th e ir appl i c a t i on f

orC A T r e l i e f

, butthe y do nota ddr e s s thi s i s s ue i n a ny othe rpa rtof the i rbr i e f

. W e the r e f

or e c ons i de rthe C A T i s s ue aba ndone d. P E T I T I O N D I S M I S S E D , in p a rt; D E N I E D , in p a rt.

.