P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4170

_____________ M A R C O T U L IO E S P IN O S A -C O R T E Z , L U Z M A R IN O L O P E Z -T IB A D U IZ A , & X IM E N A D E L P IL A R E S P IN O S A -L O P E Z , P eti ti o n ers

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,
R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (A g e n c yC a s e N u m b e rs A 9 8 -5 4 2 -3 6 8 , A 98- 542- 369, A 98- 543- 097)
A r gued M ar ch 24, 2010
B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges- 2- ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 2, 2010)

P e t e rM

. Ro g e r s , E s q . [ AR GUE D] Ro g e r s & Ro g e r s , P

. C. 437 G r and St r eet Sui t e 1806 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219
C o u n sel fo r P eti ti o n ers Da l i n R. Ho l y o a k , E s q . [ AR GUE D] K r i s t en G i uffr eda Chapm an, E s q. R egi na B yr d, E s q. Fr anci s W

. Fr as er , I , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044
C ouns el forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F U E N T E S , C irc u it Ju d g e :T h e re a re tw o p e tit io n s u n d e r r e v ie w in th is 1 m at t er— that of E spi no sa- C ort ez (w hich i ncludes his w i fe as a d e ri v a tiv e c la im a n t) a n d th a t o f h is a d u lt d a u g h te r, X im e n a . T he pet i t i o n s aris e outof the s ame se tof fa ct s , w hi ch ce nt er a ro u n d E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s so c ial an d b u sin e ss a c tiv iti e s an d h is connec t i ons t o the C ol om bi an mi l i t aryand governm ent

. Forthe s ake of s i m pl i ci ty , w e r efe rt o Pe ti ti o ner s col l ect i vel yas

- 3- M a rc o T u lio E sp in o sa -C o rte z , h is w if e , L u z , an d h is adul tdau g h t er , X i m ena, ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of C ol om bi a. B et w een 2002 a nd 2003, the Espi nos a- C or t ez f ami l yw as r epea t edl ythr eat ened by ag en t s of the Fuer zas A r m adas R evol u cionar i as de C ol om bi a ( “FA R C ”) i n an ef for tt o coer ce E s pi nos a- C or t ez, w ho had cl os e conne ct i ons t o the C ol om bi an g o v e rn m e n t an d m ili tar y, in to b e c o m in g a F A R C in f o rm a n t. O nce i tbeca m e cl earthatthe C ol om bi an governm ent w oul d not tak e ste p s to p ro tec t h is f a m ily , E sp in o sa -C o rte z liq u id a ted h is as s et s , fl ed w i th hi s fami l y t o the U ni t ed St at es , and appl i ed for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns t T or tur e (“ C A T ”)

. T he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) deni ed hi s appl i cat i on, and the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i rme d , c o n c l u d i n g thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez ha d nots how n t hathe w oul d be per s ecut ed on ac countof ac tual or im p u te d p o litic a l b e lie f s if h e w e re re m o v e d to C o lo m b ia

. E s pi nos a-C or t ez s eeks r evi ew on one i s s ue— w hether s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on that Es p i n o s a - Cort e z l a c k s a r e a s o n a b l e f e a rth a th e wou l d be per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s actual ori m put ed pol i t i cal bel i efs i f he w er e t o r eturn t o C o lom b ia. A l though w e r evi ew the 1“Espi nos a- C or t ez, ” exc eptw her e i ti s nece s s aryt o i dent i fythem in d iv id u a lly.

- 4- B I A ’ s deci s i on undera hi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d, w e conc l ude thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , a n d w e w ill g ra n t th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. A. We b e g i n b yr e v i e w i n g E s p i n o s a - Co r t e z ’ s t e s t i m o n y . We not e atthe out s etthatthe I J found the maj or i ty o f E s pi nos aC or t ez’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e, and unl es s otherw i se n o t ed, the te s tim o n yw e re v ie w b e lo w w a s f o u n d c re d ib le

. E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s tro u b les w ith th e F A R C tra c e b a c k to 1984, w hen a vehi cl e he w as dr i vi ng w as ambushed and he w as ki dnapped. E s pi nos a- C or t ez w as hel d capt i ve bythe FA R C for a p p ro x im a telyo n e m o n th u n til a ra n so m w a s p a id to se c u re h is r el e as e. E s pi nos a- C or t ez c oncede d dur i ng hi s t es t i m onythatthe 1984 ki dnappi ng w as m ot i vat ed byhi s w eal th, nothi s pol i t i cal bel i efs ; i ndeed, he w as notpol i t i cal l yact i ve i n anym eani ngful w ayi n 1984. A ft er the ki dnappi ng, how ever , and as a r es ul tof h is d is lik e f

o r th e F A R C , h e b e c a m e in c re a sin g lya c tiv e in L ib e ra l P a rtyp o lit ics , g iv in g m o n e yto v a rio u s L ib e ra l P a rty cand i dates and part i ci pati ng i n a vari et y of poli t i cal cam paigns. A ccor di ng t o E spi nos a- C or t ez’ s t es t i m ony , thes e ca m pai gns wo u l d f r e q u e n t l yr e c e i v e g e n e r a l i z e d th r e a t s f r o m th e F ARC, a l th o u g h h e p e r s o n a l l yr e c e i v e d n o d i r e c tth r e a t s f r o m th e F ARC w hi l e part i ci pat i ng i n the cam pai gns . E s pi nos a- C or t ez di d not tes tifyin sig n if

ica n t d e tail a s to h is p a rticip a tio n in L ib e ra l P a rty- 5- pol i t i cs , m ent i oni ng i tonl yi n pas s i ng dur i ng hi s d i r ect t es t i m on y . T he I J di d notfi nd hi s t es t i m onyconce rni ng “the degr ee of hi s pol i t i cal act i vi ty ” t o be cr edi bl e i n l i ght of the fa ct th a t h e “ m e n tio n e d h is p o litic a l p a rt ic ip a tio n o n ly in c id e n ta lly.” (A p p . at 75

. ) I n addi t i on t o hi s di r ectpart i ci pati o n i n pol i t i cal c a m p a ig n s, E sp in o sa -C o rte z h a d w id e-r ang i ng con necti on s w i th the C ol om bi an mi l i t ary and governm ent as a r es ul t of hi s s oci al and bus i nes s act i vi t i es . E s pi nos a- C or t ez ha d l ong part i ci pat ed i n eques tr i an eve nt s i n C ol om bi a and w as a mem berof the Feder al E ques tr i an B oar d; E s pi nos a- C or t ez t es t i fi ed that he and h is w ife w o u ld attend eq u estri an ev en ts ev ery w ee k en d , w h ere theyw oul d s oci ali ze w i th governm entm i ni s t er s and hi ghra n k in g m ilita ry p e rs o n n e l. M or e i m por t ant l yforpurpos es of Pet i t i oner s ’ as y l um c laim s, E sp in o sa -C o rte z a lso d e v e lo p e d re latio n s h ip s w ith go vernm ental and m i l i t aryfi gu res th ro ug h h i s busi ness act i vi ti es. I n part i cul ar , E s pi nos a- C or t ez ow ned a c at er i ng b u sine s s that su p p li ed fo o d to g o v ern m en tal an d m il it ary i n s t i tu t i o n s , a n d h e o wn e d a s t o r e wi th i n t h e mi l i t a rya c a d e my that so ld f

o o d to ca d ets. T h ro u g h h is w o rk a s a f o o d su p p li er, Es p i n o s a - Cort e z , h i s f a mi l y , a n d h i s e mpl o y e e s h a d “ f r ee acc es s ” t o the m i l i t ary aca demyatal l hour s , ( A pp. at138) ; that i s, as a foo d sup pli er t o g ov ernm ent and m i l i t aryi nst i tuti on s, E s pi nos a- C or t ez a nd hi s fami l yhad r eadyacc es s t o, and f re q u e n tly w o rk e d in , th o s e in s titu tio n s . Be twee n 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 3 , Es p i n o s a - Cort e z r e c e i ved aT he I J expr es s l ys t at ed thats he found Espi nos a- 2 C o rte z ’s te stim o n y“ w ith re sp e c t to th e F A R C ’s p u rsu it o f h im to b ec o m e the irinf

o rm an t” t o b e c red ible. (A p p . at 74

. ) T h e tra n sc rip t o f

th e im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s is re p lete 3 w ith e rro rs, a n d n u m e ro u s w o rd s o f th e tes ti m o n ya re sim p ly l abel ed “i ndi s cerni bl e. ” Pet i t i oner s compl ai ned dur ing the p ro c e e d in g s th a t E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s te stim o n y w a s b e in g p o o rly tr ans l at ed, and theyr ai s ed thi s i s s ue ( as w el l as a concern over the i nadequa cyof the tr ans cr i pt ) on appea l befor e t he B I A , but th e yd o n o t r a is e it h e re .

- 6- s er i es of thr eat eni ng t el ephone cal l s fr om the FA R C

. W hen he 2 r ece i ved the fi r s ts uch ca l l , he thoughtthatthe cal l erw as pl ay i ng a pra nk on hi m , but the F A R C agenti nform ed hi m that he w as notj oki ng and thatthe FA R C w an ted h is hel p. T he ca ll er p rom ised to g et ba ck in tou ch w ith h im an d h u n g u p . In N ovember 2002, the FA R C agentcal l ed bac k and demanded, f i r s t , th a tEs p i n o s a - Co r t e z a c t a s a n i n f o r ma n tf o rth e F ARC a n d , se c o n d , tha t h e c e a se p ro v id in g f o o d a n d o th e r se rv ice s to the arm y . T he ca l l ers t at ed thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s w i fe a nd daught e r wou l d b e k i l l e d i f h e d i d n o t a s s i s t th e FARC; t he cal l erdes cr i bed X i m ena’ s dai l yr out i ne i n det ai l , i m pl y i ng that the FA R C had been fol l ow i ng her

. A l though the tr ans l at i on or tra n sc rip tio n o f

E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s tes tim o n y o n th is p o in t co u ld be cl ear er , i ti s evi dent that E s pi nos a- C or t ez r ej ect ed the

3 F A R C ’s dem and s i n n o u ncert ai n term s: T heyw ant ed me, m e t o be an i nform ant

. A nd that w e sto p p ro v id in g f

o r th e a rm y a n d w o rk w ith them an d theyneede d— thattheyw ant ed partofT h e un d erli n ed p o rt ion o f th e t esti m o n y q u o te d h ere 4 appea r s t o cont ai n an err or i n tr ans l at i on ortr ans cr i pt i on, i n that th e f irst w o rd c lea rlysh o u ld b e “ I,” n o t “th e y .” It m a k e s littl e s ens e forthe FA R C t o h ave i nform ed Espi nos a- C or t ez thathe w o u ld n o t in f

o r m f o r th e m b e c a u se th e yg o a g a in st h is p rin c iples— o b v iou sly , E sp ino sa-C o rt ez said this t o the c all er, notthe r ever s e. T hi s r eadi ng i s s uppor t ed bythe nexts ent ence , w hi ch expl ai ns w hy “at no t i m e” w oul d E s pi nos a i nform forthe F A R C . A s w e e x p lain b e lo w , h o w e v e r, w h e th e r o r n o t th is p o rtio n o f

E sp in o sa -C o rt e z ’ s te stim o n yw a s m istra n sla ted is im m a te ri a l to o u r a n a lysis

.

- 7- the m on eytha t I had , that I m ade. Th eyj ust st at ed thatno m om ent w ou l d I acceptbecau se th e yg o a g a i n s tmyp r i nc i pl e s . At , a tn o t i me beca us e w i th the expe r i ence thatI had myhatr ed of them w as compl et e and I , I w ant ed them t o be enem i es. (Id. at 13 8 (em p h asis ad d ed

. )) 4 Pr i or t o the N ovember 2002 t el ephone cal l , E s pi nos aC or t ez ha d i nform ed nei ther hi s w i fe nor the pol i ce of the pr i or thr eat s . A ft erthatcal l , how ever , he “w enti nt o a pani c” a nd i nfo rm ed h i s w i fe of

the tel eph on e cal l s. (I d. at 13 4. ) H e al so sp o k e to his frien d s in the m il it ary , w h o ad v ised h im that there w a s n o th in g to b e d o n e a n d th a t h e sh o u ld c h a n g e h is d a ily ro u tin e . In D e c e m b e r 20 0 2 , h e f o u n d o n th e w in d sh ield o f h is ca r a d raw ing o f th e ro u te he too k w h en d ri v ing to the m il it ary aca demy , w hi ch he unde r s t ood t o be an i ndi cat i on of t he fa ct th a t h e w a s b e in g f

o llo w e d b yth e F A R C . A t th is p o in t,- 8- E s pi nos a- C or t ez w entt o the mi l i t aryuni tcal l ed G rupos de A cci ón U ni fi cada por l a L i bert ad P er s onal ( “G A U L A ”) , w hi ch i s a s p e c i a l i z e d a n t i

- k i d n a p p i n g u n i t o f th e C o l o m b i a n m i l i t a ry. G A U L A i nform ed hi m that cas es ol der than hi s t ook pr i or i tyand th a t, i n e f

f e c t, n o th in g c o u ld b e d o n e to p ro tec t h im o r h is f a m i l y. In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 , E sp in o sa -C o rte z r e c e iv e d a f in a l ca ll fr om the FA R C i n w hi ch the ca l l er demanded that he w or k as an i nform antand “c ooper at e w i th them i n everys ens e. ” ( I d. at 136. ) Subse quent l y , i n M ay 2003, tw o w el l

- dr essed m en a p p ro a c h e d X im e n a o n th e stre e t o n h e r w a yh o m e f ro m sc h o o l. T he men t o ld h er t o r el aythe mess age t o herfatherthatthey w er e “no t pl ay i ng. ” ( I d. at156. ) A l arm ed bythe fa ctthatthe FA R C had esc al at ed fr om m aki ng t el ephone cal l s t o E s pi nos aC o rte z to m a k in g p e rso n a l c o n ta c t w ith X im e n a , the f a m ily d e c id e d th a t th e yh a d to lea v e C o lo m b ia. T h e yq u ick ly liq u id a ted th e ir a ss e ts a n d f lew to th e U n ited S tate s, th e o n ly c o u n tr yw h e re th e th re e a lr e a d yh a d to u ri s t v is a s . B. Shor t l yaft erthei rarr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es , E s pi nos aCo r t e z a n d Xi me na f i l e d s e p a r a t e p e t i t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, a n d C A T reli ef; E sp ino sa-C o rt ez ’s appl i cat i on w as fi led on behal f of hi m s el f and hi s w i fe. T he hear i ngs on the tw o pet i t i ons w ere co ns ol i dat ed, as the fa ctual bas i s for X i m ena’ s appl i cat i on i s i dent i cal t o thatunder l y i ng her p a re n ts ’ a p p lic a tio n . T he I J deni ed the appl i cat i ons . A s w e not ed, s upr a, the I J f o u n d th a t Es p i n o s a - Cort e z ’ s t e s t i mon y c o n c e rn i n g t he FA R C ’ s pur s ui tof hi m t o become thei ri nform antw as cr edi bl e,- 9- b u t sh e d id n o t f

in d h is tes tim o n y c o n c e rn in g h is L ib e ra l P a rty campai gn act i vi t i es to be cr edi bl e. T he I J concl uded that E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s tre a tm e n t b yth e F A R C d id n o t am o u n t to pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni ons , beca us e ( 1) the 1984 ki dnappi ng w as m ot i vat ed by m oney , not pol i t i cs ; and (2 ) th e F A R C ’s th re a ts w e re n o t su f f icie n tlyim m in e n t to c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n . T he I J fur therconcl uded thatPet i t i oner s had not d em o n str ated that theyh av e a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof Espi nos a- C or t ez’ s actual ori m put ed p o lit ica l b e lief

s. T h e IJ o b se rv e d th a t th e F A R C se e k s to des t abi l i ze the countryas a w hol e— s he not ed that“eve ry one fr om the pr es i denton dow n i s under thr eat fr om FA R C , ” (i d. at 7 6 )— a n d th a t g e n e ra lize d c iv il u n re st d o e s n o t co n stitu te per s ecut i on. W i th r egar d t o the thr eat s that w er e l evi ed at Pet i t i oner s i n part i cul ar , the I J concl uded thatther e w as no nexus betw een thes e thr eat s and Espi nos a- C or t ez’ s actual or i m put ed pol i t i cal bel i efs beca us e “r es pondent ’ s ow n pol i t i cal act i vi tyi s verys canty . ” ( I d. at77. ) I ns t ead, the IJ concl uded thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez ha d been t hr eat ened beca us e of hi s s oci al and professi on al t i es t o the gov ernm ent, no this po l i t i cal beli efs: A lm o st a ll the e v iden ce ref lects [tha t] F A R C ’s m ot i vat i on t o r ecrui tr es pondentas an i nform ant w a s b a se d o n h is c o m m e rc ial a n d s o c ia l tie s to p o lice , m ili tar ya n d g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls, a n d h is acc es s t o thes e gr oups thr ough hi s cat er i ng bus i nes s . FA R C does vi ew the re s pondentas pot ent i al l yus eful t o thei rgoal , but di d notdeem hi m pol i t i cal l yoffe ns i ve.Si nce an appl i cant ’ s bur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of 5 r emoval i s hi gherthan thatforas y l um , the IJ det erm i ned thatthe P eti ti o n ers w ere ineligible f o r w ith h o ld ing o f re m o v al. T h e IJ l i k e wi s e d e n i e d th e i rappl i c a t i o n s f o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T, sin c e it w a s n o t th e C o lo m b ian g o v e rn m e n t th a t th re a ten e d to h a r m P e t i t i o n e r s . E s p i n o s a - Co r t e z d o e s n o ta p p e a l th e s e two ru lin g s .

- 10- ( I d. at78- 79. ) H avi ng found thatthe per sec u ti on E s pi nos aC o rt ez fa ce d w as n o t on ac co u n t of h is po li ti ca l beliefs, th e IJ c o n c l u d e d th a th e wa s i n e l i g i b l e f o ra s y l u m. 5 E s p i n o s a - Co r t e z a p p e a l e d th e I J ’ s ru l i n g t o th e BI A, w hich affi rm ed. T he B IA reas on ed as fo l l ow s: [T]he r es pondentdi d notdemonstr at e thatthe FA R C w as m o ti vat ed t o thr eat en hi m byany p o lit ica l o p in io n im p u ted to h im o r be c a u se o f h is pr i ors uppor tand part i ci pat i on i n m ay or al campai gns on behal f of the Li ber al Par ty . T he res po nd ent did no t adeq uatel y show that his p o lit ica l o p in io n p layed a n y sig n if ica n t r o le in h is b u s in e s s c o n n e c tio n s w ith th e m ili tar y . N o r d id he s u ff ici ent l ys how thatthe FA R C w oul d vi ew h im a s a p o lit ica l s u p p o rte r o f th e g o v e rn m e n t if h e d id n o t se rv e a s an in f o rm a n t . .

. . T h u s, w h ile th e l e a d r e s p o n d e n t c l a i ms th a tth e F ARC a ttribu ted a p o lit ica l o p in io n to h im b a se d o n h is s t r ong connec t i ons w it h t he C ol om bi an governm ent and thathi s r efus al t o cooper at e w as per cei ved as an i nt ent i on t o s uppor tthe- 11- governm en t, t he evi dence of r ecor d does not adequa t el ys uppor thi s cl ai m . See I

. N

. S. v. E li as-Z ac arias, 50 2 U

. S

. 4 7 8 , 4 8 2 (19 9 2 ). (A p p . at 3. ) T he B I A l i kew i s e af fi r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of E s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s ap p li cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T reli ef

, see N o te 5, su p ra, an d rejected E sp ino sa-C o rt ez ’s ar gum entthati nadequa t e tr ans l at i on and tr ans cr i pt i on aff ect ed the fai r nes s of the pr ocee di ngs , s ee N ot e 3, s upr a. E spi nos aC or t ez ther eaf

t erfi l ed thi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B IA ’s d e c is io n . II. A. W e h av e j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval under 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 )

. “ Be c a u s e th e BI A i s s u ed an o p inion , rathe r th an a sum m ary af firm an ce , w e rev iew the B IA ’s ( r ather than the I J ’ s ) deci s i on. ” R r anci v. A t t ’ yG en. , 540 F. 3d 165, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 1 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ))

. O urr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deni al of Peti t i oner s ’ as y l um appl i cat i on i s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al

. “W e af fi rm anyfi ndi ngs of fac ts uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence an d are ‘ bound bythe admi ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ngs of f ac t unl es s a r eas onabl e adj udi cat or w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to arrive at a c o n tr aryco n clus ion

. ’” C amar a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 580 F. 3d 196, 201 (3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Y an L an W u v. A s hcr oft , 393 F. 3d 418, 421 (3d C ir

. 2005 ) ) ; s e e a l s o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “[T] he admi ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s a nyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ”)

. W hether , for- 12- asy l um pu rposes, a peti t i on er has proven thathe o r s he h as a w el l

- founded fea r of per s ecut i on “i s a ques t i on of fac t , and the agenc ydet erm i nat i on m u st be uphel d i f i ti s s uppor t ed by ‘sub stan ti al ev iden ce ’ i n the re co rd.” G o m ez -Z u luag a v . A tt ’y G e n . , 5 2 7 F. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g Lu k wag o v. A s hcr oft , 3 2 9 F. 3d 157, 167 ( 3d C i r . 2003) )

. W e have , h o w ev er, em p h asize d that “the req u ir em en t th at th e B IA ’s d e c isio n b e su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e is n o t an e m p ty o n e.” C h av arria v. G o n za lez, 44 6 F

. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).

“ [ D ]e f e ren ce is no t du e w h ere fin d ing s an d co n clus ion s are b a se d o n in f

e re n c e s o r p re su m p tio n s th a t ar e n o t re a so n a b ly g ro u n d e d in th e rec o rd, view ed as a w h o le,” V aldiv iezo -G alda m ez v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 0 2 F

. 3 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ), a n d th e B IA is n o t p e rm itt e d sim p lyto ign o re o r m isco n stru e e v iden ce in the asy lum ap p li ca n t’ s fa v o r. S ee, e. g. , C hav arr i a, 44 6 F

. 3d at51 9; B i nR ashed v

. G on zal es, 5 0 2 F

. 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 3 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). B. E s pi nos a- C or t ez c ont ends thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on thathe lac k e d a re a so n a b le f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is actual ori m put ed pol i t i cal bel i efs i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al ev iden ce in the rec o rd. In p arti cu lar, h e a rgu e s th at th e B IA em ploy ed too na rr ow an u nd ers t and i ng of w hat const itu tes a pol i t i cal opi ni on, and t hat the B I A over l ooked the s i gni fi canc e of hi s cl os e t i es t o the C ol om bi an governm enti n concl udi ng that he had n o t be en t ar get ed bec aus e of a n i m put ed pol i t i cal o p inion

. W e rev iew the l aw that g o v ern s E s p ino sa-C o rt ez ’s a sy lu m c laim a n d a d d re ss th e m e rits o f h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew in tu rn b e lo w .- 13- 1. “The A t t orneyG ener al has the di s cr et i on t o gr antas y l um t o an yal i en w ho ‘ i s a r efuge e w i thi n the meani ng of s ect i on 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ’ ” of the I m m i gr at i on an d N at i onal i tyA ct (“ IN A ” )

. C a m a ra , 5 8 0 F .3 d a t 2 0 1 (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 (b) (1) (A ))

. T he I N A defines the term “refugee” as fol l ow s: [A ] nyper s on w ho i s out s i de anycountryof s uch per s on’ s nat i onal i ty . . . and w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o, and i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f o r h er s el f of the pr ot ect i on of, that co u n tryb ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l

- founded f

ea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ). U nderthe t erm s of thi s pr ovi s i on, E s pi nos a- C or t ez may s how that he i s el i gi bl e for as y l um bypr ovi ng ei therthathe w as pr evi ous l yper sec u te d on acc ountof a s t atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ound, orthat he has a w el l

- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc o u n to f

a s t a tu t o r i l ye n u me r a t e d g r o u n d

. Pe r s e c u t i on

“ in c lu d e s , b u t is n o t li m ited to , ‘th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, to rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic r e stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a thr eatt o l i fe or fr eedom. ’ ” G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F. 3d at340 (qu o ti n g Y u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 3 F

. 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 )). A n a s y l u m a p p l i c a n twho e s t a b l i s h e s th a th e o rs h e was pr evi ous l yper s ecut ed o n acc ountof a s t atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ound tr i gger s a r ebutt abl e pre s um pt i on that the appl i canthas a w el l

- founded f

earof futur e per s ec u ti o n . See Lukw ago, 329 F .3 d a t 1 7 4 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).- 14- A n asy l um app l i cant w ho cann o t est abli sh past per s ecut i on does not enj oy the benef i t of s uch a pr es um pt i on but m ays t i l l demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyfor as y l um byes t abl i s hi ng that he or s he has a w el l

- founded fearof futur e per s ecut i on. I n or der t o s how thata fe arof futur e per s ecut ion is “w el l

- founded, ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ), a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is o rh e r“ f e a ri s b o th s u b

j e c t i v e [ l y ] a n d o b

j e c t i v e l yr e a s o nabl e, w hi ch [he or ] s he m ay do by us i ng t es t i m oni al , document ary , or expertevi dence

. ” G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F. 3d at346 ( i nt ernal ci t at i o n s o m itt ed)

. I n or dert o s at i s fythe s ubj ect i ve pr ong of th is in q u ir y , th e p e titio n e r m u s t sh o w “ th a t th e f e a r i s g e n u in e .” Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). T o sat i sfythe o bject i ve p rong, the p et i t i on er m ust s how that“a r eas onabl e per s on i n the ali en’ s ci r cumst ance s w o u ld f e a r p e r s e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to th e c o u n tr yin q u e s tio n .” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). H ow ev er, “an a ppl i cantforas y l um need notpr ove that the per s ecut i on he ors he s uffe r ed ( orfea r s su ffer i ng i n the futur e) occurr ed s ol el yon acc ount[of] one of the fi ve gr ounds enumer at ed i n the IN A

. ” S i ngh v. G onzal es , 406 F. 3d 191, 197 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). R at her, t he ap pli cant m ust on l ydem on strat e t hat t he prot ect ed groun d con st i tutes “atl east o n e c e n tr a l r e a s o n f

o r p e rs e c u tin g th e a p p lic a n t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1108( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( I )

. T he asy l um appl i cantbear s the bur den of p ro v in g e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m , a n d “ [ t]e stim o n y , b yitse lf , is s uffi ci entt o m eett hi s bur den, i f cr edi bl e. ” S i ngh, 406 F. 3d at 1 9 5 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). 2. T u r n i n g t o t h e me r i t s o f th e i n s t a n tp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w,T he G ener al C ouns el of the Imm i gr at i on and 6 N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) r ecogni zed as ear l y as 1993 that an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on i s an ac cept abl e bas i s foran as y l um cl ai m . See IN S G en er al C ouns el L egal O pi ni on ( J anuary19, 1993) , r epr i nt ed i n 70 I nt erpr et erR el eas es 498.

- 15- w e conc l ude that the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on that the FA R C di d not tar g e t E sp in o sa -C o rte z o n a c c o u n t o f a p o lit ica l o p in io n it i m put ed t o hi m i s nots uppor t ed b ys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the re c o rd

. W e h a v e lo n g re c o g n ize d th a t a p e rso n c a n b e e lig ib le for as y l um i f he f

ace s the pr os pectof per s ecut i on on acc ountof i m put ed, as w el l as actual , pol i t i cal bel i efs

. See, e. g. , L ukw ago, 329 F. 3d at 181 ( “[P] er s ecut i on m aybe on ac countof a pol i t i cal opi ni on the appl i cantactual l yhol ds oron ac co u n tof one the [per s ecut or ] has i m put ed t o hi m . ”) ( ci t at i on o m it ted)

. T he m aj or i tyof our sist erci r cui t s have l i kew i s e hel d that“an a l i en m a yb a s e a p e rs e c u tio n c la im o n im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n .” 6 C h en v . H o lder, -- - F

. 3 d --- -, 2 0 1 0 W L 1 6 8 8 4 9 1 , at * 5 (7th C ir

. A p r. 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ); a c c o rd H a id e r v. H o ld e r, 5 9 5 F .3 d 2 7 6 , 2 8 5 (6 th C i r . 2 0 10) ; M arr oqui n- O choma v. H ol der , 574 F. 3d 574, 577 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); S ing h v . M u k ase y , 5 4 3 F

. 3 d 1 , 6 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ); D elga d o v . M u k ase y , 5 0 8 F

. 3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 6 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); R ivera v . U

. S

. A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 7 F

. 3 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); C o rdo n -G arc ia v. I. N

. S

. , 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 9 8 5 , 9 9 1 -92 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). I n d e t e r mi n i n g whe th e r a n a s y l u m ap p l i c a nt w as per s ecut ed bec aus e of a n i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on, w e foc us on w hether“the per s ecut orattr i but ed a pol i t i cal opi ni on t o the v ictim , an d a c ted u p o n th e a ttribu tio n .” A m a n f i v . A sh c ro f

t, 3 2 8 F .3 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 9 n .4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h is- 16- fo cu s o n w h ethe r th e p erse cu tor (or w o u ld-b e p erse cu tor) attr i but es a pol i t i cal vi ew t o the vi ct i m m akes clea r that“the IN A ‘m akes m oti v e c rit i cal ’ and an asy l um app l i cant m ust p rov ide ‘so m e e v iden ce o f [ m o ti v e], direct or c ir cu m stan ti al. ’” G om ez- Z u luaga, 527 F. 3d at343 ( quot i ng E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U

. S. at 4 8 3 ). A l though cogni zantof thi s emphasi s upon a p e r s e c u t o r ’ s mo t i v e , th e Cour t s o f Ap p e a l s h a v e a tth e s a me t i m e r ecogni zed that“i tw oul d be pat ent l yabs ur d to expec tan ap p li cant

. . . t o pr oduce [] document ary evi dence ” of a per s ecut or ’ s m ot i ves , C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at521 ( quot at ion m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m i tt ed), si nce “p e rse c u to rs a re h a rd lylik e ly t o s ubm i tdecl ar at i ons expl ai ni ng exac t l y w hat m ot i vat ed them to ac t. ” P ar u s s im o v a v . M u k ase y , 5 5 5 F

. 3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g ly , in c e rta in c a se s, “ th e f

a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s a lo n e m a yc o n stitu te s u f f ic ie n t c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f a p e rs e c u to r’ s . . . m o tiv e s.” C a n a les -V a rg a s v . G o n z a les , 4 4 1 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 4 (9 th C i r . 2006) ( fur th er expl ai ni ng that“ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of m ot i ve mayi ncl ude, i nt er al i a, the t i m i ng of the per s ecut i on and s i gns orembl ems l eftatthe s i t e of pe r s ecut i on”) ( quot at i on m ark s and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at 5 2 1

. I n fi nd ing thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h that FA R C ’ s m ot i ves forpur s ui ng hi m r el at ed t o actual ori m put ed pol i t i cal bel i efs , the B I A reli ed al m os texcl us i vel yupon the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E l i as - Z aca r i as ; i n defe ndi ng the B I A ’ s deci s i on, the G overnm entl i kew ise r es t s heavi l yupon E l i as - Z aca r i as . O w i ng t o i t s i m por t ance i n thi s cas e, ther efor e, a d e ta ile d re v ie w o f

th a t d e c is io n is in o rd e r. I n E l i as - Z aca r i as , the pet i t i onerw as a y oung m an fr om- 17- G u a tem a la w h o w a s a p p ro a c h e d b yg u e rrillas a n d u rg e d to jo in th e ir m o v e m e n t. 50 2 U .S . at 4 7 9 . T h e p e tit io n e r re sis ted th is att empt atr ecrui t m entbeca us e, acc or di ng t o hi s t es t i m ony , “the guerr i l l as ar e aga i ns t the gover nm ent and he w as afr ai d thatthe g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld re talia te a g a in st h im a n d h is fa m ily if h e d id j oi n th e g u err i l l as . ” I d. at480. T he I J and the B I A concl uded th a t th e g u e rrillas ’ a ttem p ted re c ru itm e n t d id n o t co n stitu te per s ecut i on on acc o u n tof the pet i t i oner ’ s pol i t i cal bel i efs , but th e N i n t h C i r c u i t“ ru l e d th a ta c t s o f c o n s c r i p t i o n b y a nongovernm ent al gr oup cons t i tut e per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on, and det erm i ned thatE l i as - Z aca r i as had a ‘w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r’ o f s u c h c o n s c ri p tio n .” Id

. T he Supr eme C our tr ever s ed. A s the C our texpl ai ned, E l i as - Z aca r i as had not onl y fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathe r es i s t ed th e re c ru itm e n t ef

f o rts o n a c c o u n t o f

h is p o lit ica l b e lief

s, b u t h is t es t i m ony r evea l ed j us t the opposi t e t o be true— thathe r es i s t ed outof fe arof governm ent al r et al i at i on ( w hi ch i s nota pol i t i cal o p inion ): E ven a pe r s on w ho s uppor t s a guerr i l l a movem ent m i ghtr es i s tr ecrui t m entfora vari etyof re a so n s— f

e a r o f c o m b a t, a d e sire to re m a in w ith one’ s fami l yand fr i ends , a des i r e t o earn a bett er l i vi ng i n ci vi l i an l i fe, t o m ent i on onl ya fe w . T he r ecor d i n the pr es entcas e notonl y fai l ed t o s how a p o lit ica l m o tiv e o n E lias -Z a c a ria s’ p a rt; it s how ed the oppos i t e. H e t es t i fi ed that he r efus ed t o j oi n the guerr i l l as beca us e he w as af r ai d that the governm entw oul d r et al i at e aga i ns t h i m and hi s fami l yi f he di d s o. N or i s ther e anyi ndi cat i on ( as s um i ng, ar guen d o , i tw oul d s uffi ce) thattheI tbear s r epea t i ng, how ever , thatevi dence of the 7 p e rse c u to r’s m o tiv e m a y b e

— a n d , fo r p ra c tica l p u rp o se s, w ill nece s s ar i l y be— ci r cumst ant i al , not di r ect

. See C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at521 ( not i ng that“per s ecut or s ar e har dl yl i kel y t o pr ovi de thei rvi ct i m s w i th af fi davi t s att es t i ng t o thei ract s of

- 18- guer r i l l a s er r o n e o u s l y b e l i e v e d t hat E l i as - Z aca r i as ’ r efus al w as pol i t i cal l ybas ed. Id. at 48 2

. T h e C o u rtli k ew ise rejected the p eti ti o n er’s su g g e stio n th a t th e g u e rrillas w o u ld a u to m a tica llyc o n stru e h is r es i s t ance t o thei r r ecrui t m ent eff or t s as bei ng pol i t i cal i n natur e. T he C our texpl ai ned that s uch re s i s t ance coul d j us tas eas i l ybe e x p la in e d b y“ in d if

fe ren ce , ind ec isi v en ess, an dri s k a v e rs e n e s s ,” and thatE l i as - Z aca r i as had fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence “that the guerr i l l as [w oul d] per s ecut e hi m beca us e of [ hi s ] pol i t i cal o p in io n , ra th e r t h a n b e c a u s e o f h is re f u s a l to f ig h t w ith th e m .” Id . a t 4 8 3

. T he B I A m or e orl es s tr eat ed El i as - Z ac ari as as di s pos i t ive of Espi nos a- C or t ez’ s as y l um cl ai m , and the G overnm entur ges thatw e do the s ame. A s the B I A concl uded and the G overnm entar gues , ther e ar e ce r t ai n obvi ous si m i l ari t i es bet w een thi s case and E l i as- Z acari as. A s i n E l i asZ aca r i as , E s pi nos a- C or t ez w as s ubj ect ed t o an ef for tat r ecrui t m entbya guerr i l l a or gani zat i on, and, as i n ourcas e, the att empt ed r ecrui t m enti n E l i as - Z aca r i as w as acc om pani ed by threat s. S ee i d. at48 0. A nd , as w as tru e i n E l i as- Z acari as, E s pi nos a- C or t ez pr oduced no di r ect evi dence that the guerr i l l as t ar get ed hi m , atl eas ti n part , on acc ountof thei rperc ept i on of hi s pol i t i cal vi ew s. Id. a t483. A tfi r s tbl us h, then, the 7p e rs e c u tio n ” ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c i t a t io n s o m itte d ). A p et i t i oneri s notr equi r ed t o pr oduce di r ectevi dence of a per s ecut or ’ s m o ti ve, buti s i ns t ead pe r m i t t ed t o r el yupon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

. See El i as - Z aca r i a s , 5 0 2 U. S. a t4 8 3

- 84.

- 19- s i m i l ar i t i es betw een the tw o ca ses l end s om e s uppor tt o the B IA ’s re je c tio n o f

E s p in o s a -C o rt e z ’s a s y lu m c la im

. T her e ar e, how ever , i m p o rt antfac tual di s t i nct i ons betw een El i as - Z aca r i as and thi s cas e thatthe B I A di d not cons i der

. T hes e factual di s t i nct i ons l ead us t o concl ude that“a r eas onabl e adj udi cat o r w oul d be compel l ed” t o fi nd thatthe F A R C ’s p u rsu it o f

E sp in o sa -C o rte z s tem m e d , at le a st in p a rt, fr om a pol i t i cal opi ni on i t i m put ed t o hi m . C amar a, 580 F. 3d at 201 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. E l i as - Z aca r i as , i n otherw or ds , i s not di s pos i t i ve of E s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s cl ai m , and the B I A over l ooked th e sig n if

ica n c e o f c e rta in c ritica l f

a c ts in th e re c o rd th a t cle a rly d is tin g u is h E s p in o s a -C o rt e z ’s c a s e f ro m E lia s -Z a c a ri a s . T he fi r s t s uch fa cti s E s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s cl os e, di r ect aff i l i at i on w i th, and suppor t of, the C ol om bi an governm entand m i l i t ary . Q ui t e unl ike the re cor d i n E l i as - Z aca r i as , i n w hi ch ther e w as no s ugges t i on w hat s oever thatthe pet i t i onerhad any ties to th e G u a tem a lan g o v e rn m e n t, E sp in o sa -C o rte z m a d e h is l i vi ng b y s uppor t i ng the C ol om bi an governm ent , m i l i t ary , and m i l i t ary ac adem ythr ough the pr ovi s i on of food a nd other serv ices. A l though w e have notm ade the poi ntexpr es s l y , the N i nth C i r cui t has l ong “found per s ecut i on of thos e w ho w or k for orw i th pol i t i cal fi gur es t o be on acc ount of the pol i t i cal opi ni on of thei rempl oy ereven i f the natur e of t hei r w or k for or w i th that per s on i s not i n i t s el f pol i t i cal

. ” N avas v. I

. N

. S. , 217 F. 3d 646,- 20- 659 n. 19 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ; acc or d Sagay dak v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 1035, 1042 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( “V i kt or w as al i gned w i th the p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n o f

h i s e mpl o y e rs i mpl yb yth e f a c tth a the w or ked as a governm entoffi cial enf or ci ng governm ent pol i ci es . ”) ; C o rdo n- G ar ci a, 204 F. 3d at992 ( W her e a t eac her t aughtl i t er acycl as s es fora gov ern m ent

- funded or gani zat i on, her “pr es um ed aff

i l i at i on w i th the G uat emal an governm ent

— an ent i tythe guerr i l l as oppos e— i s the func t i onal equi v alen t of a concl us i on thats he hol ds a pol i t i cal opi ni on oppos i t e t o thatof the guerr i l l as , w hetherornots he ac tual l yhol ds s uch an opi ni on. ”) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; V el ar de v. I N S, 140 F. 3d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 2 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). C o rd o n -G a rc ia is in str u c tiv e o n th is p o in t an d h ig h ly r el evantt o ourcas e. T h e pet i t i oneri n thatcas e w or ked for C O N A L FA , a g o v e rn me n t

- f u n d e dl i t e r a c ya g e n c yi n Guat emal a. C o r d o n - G a r c i a , 2 0 4 F

. 3 d a t9 8 8

. S h e w a s a p p r o a c h e d b y a guerr i l l a w ho, l i ke the FA R C agent s i n o u r cas e, i nform ed her “thatthe guerr i l las w an ted hert o w or k forthem i ns t ead of for C O N A L FA

. ” I d. at 989. T he guerr i l l a i nform ed the pet i t i oner thatthe guerr i l l as oppos ed her l i t er acy w or k, thr eat ened he r , and t ol d her that s he w oul d have t o “dec i de w hi ch one y ou’ r e goi ng t o w or k w i th. ” I d. T he pet i t i onerfl ed t o the U ni t ed St at es and ap p li ed fo r asy lum ; th e IJ rejected h er a sy lum claim an d the B IA aff i r m ed. T he N i nth C i r cui tg r a n t e d the pet i t i on forr evi ew , hol di ng that C or don- G ar ci a had been per s ecut ed on acc ount of a p r og o v e rn m e n t p o lit ica l o p in io n th a t th e g u e rrillas h a d im p u ted to her by vi r tue of her empl oym ent w i th a go v ernment

- funded or gani zat i on. A s t he courtexpl ai ned, “[a ] bs entheraff i l i at i on w i th the governm ent and i t s pus h forl i t er acyamong- 21- G uat emal ans , Pet i t i onerl i kel yw oul d nothave c om e t o the g u e rrillas ’ a tten tio n .” Id

. a t 9 9 2 . In a n a n a ly sis th a t is d ire c tly ap p li ca b le to E sp ino sa-C o rt ez ’s asy lum claim , the C o u rt obs erved that Pet i t i oner ’ s “pr es um ed af fi l i at i on” w i th the G uat emal an governm ent

— an ent i ty the guerr i l l as o p p o s e

— i s th e f

u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t of a concl us i on thats he hol ds a pol i t i cal opi ni on oppos i t e t o thatof the guerr i l l as , w heth er o r not s he ac tual l yhol ds s uch an opi ni on. T h is i s the crux of the i dea c o ver ed bythe doctr i ne of “i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on” i n r efuge e and a s y l um law

. A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t a n y re a so n a b le fac t fi nder w oul d have t o concl ude thatPet i t i oner su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n , a t lea st in p a rt, d u e to th is i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. A ccor di ng to t he B I A , Pet i t i oner ’ s exper i ence s re s u lte d fro m “ a tte m p te d re c ru itm e n t,”

“ d is p le a s u re w ith th e re s p o n d e n t’ s p ro f e s s io n ,” and nothi ng m or e than “the gener al s tr at egy of the G u a te m a la n g u e rr ill a s to c re a te c iv il d is o rd e r.” T h ese d esc ri p ti o n s are n o t bo rne o u t bythe re co rd in th is c a se . P e tit io n e r p lain lysu f f e re d th is exper i ence s peci fi cal l y beca us e of heraff i l i at i on w ith the g o v ern m en t .

. . . E ac h o f th e B IA ’s att empt s t o n u l l i fythe pol i t i cal overt ones of Pet i t i oner ’ s exper ienc es over l ooks both the fa ct thats he w as aff

i l i at ed w i th the governm entand the obvi ous i nfer ence thather cont i nued t eac hi ng m eant opp osi t i on t o the gue rr i l l as’ go al s.- 22- Id . a t 9 9 2 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e a g re e w ith th is a n a ly sis , an d , as w a s th e c a se in C or don- G ar ci a, w e bel i eve thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi n d e rwou l d be c o mpe l l e d t o c o n c l u d e th a t th e p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n s t hatt he guerr i l l as i m put ed t o E s pi nos a- C or t ez w er e “at l eas tone ce ntr al rea so n ” f

o r th e F A R C ’s th rea ts. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 8 (b)(1 )(B )(I ). A s w a s tru e in C o rd o n -G a rc ia, E sp in o sa -C o rte z w a s n o t d ire c tly e m p lo y e d b y th e C o lo m b ian g o v e rn m e n t, b u t h e w a s c lo se ly aff i l i at ed w i th t he governm ent , pr ovi ded s uppor tt o the g o v e rn m e n t, an d h e d e p e n d e d u p o n th e g o v e rn m e n t f o r h is l i vel i hood. I d. at988. A n d as i n C or don- G ar ci a, i tw as excl us i vel yE s p i n o s a - Cort e z ’ s aff i l i at i on w i th, and ac ces s t o, the C ol om bi an governm entand mi l i t arythatbr ou g h thi m “t o the g u e rri ll a s ’ a tten tio n ” in th e f irst p lac e . Id . at 9 9 2 . T h e re is a b so lu telyn o su g g e stio n f ro m th e re c o rd th a t th e F A R C w o u ld have pur s ued Espi nos a- C or t ez t o become an i nform ant i f he ha d n o tb e e n s o c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i th th e g o v e rn m e n ta n d m i l i t a ry, a n d , i n d e e d , th e e n t i r e ty o f th e e v i d e n c e i s t o th e c o n tr a ry . To concl ude, as the B I A di d, that ther e w as “no pol i t i cal l i nk t o the F A R C ’s th rea ts, ” (A p p . at 3), w o u ld req u ir e e ith er tha t o n e turn a b li n d ey e to the fa ctua l ci rcu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing the F A R C ’s p u rsu it o f E sp in o sa -C o rte z , o r th a t o n e a d o p t an im p e rm iss ib ly narr ow cons truct i on of th e ter m “pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” See D el gado v. M ukas ey , 508 F

. 3 d 7 0 2, 707 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( bei ng pr o- governm entand ant i

- FA R C i s a pol i t i cal opi ni on foras y l um p u rp o s e s ). I ndeed, as E s pi nos a- C or t ez ar gues , w e have de t erm i ned thatthe B I A err ed i n fai l i ng t o i m put e pol i t i cal opi ni ons under m or e t enuous ci r cumst ance s than thos e pr es ent ed i n this c as e. In C h a v a rria , the p e tit io n e r “ w a s e ss e n tial ly a p o lit ica l,” b u t,- 23- act i ng as a good Samar i t an , h e ca m e t o the ai d of tw o w om en w ho w er e bei ng at t acke d b yg o v e r n me n t

- s p o n s o r ed par ami l i t ar i es i n G uat emal a. C h av arr i a, 446 F. 3d at513. T he tw o w om en, i tturns out , w ere m ember s of C O N A V I G U A , an ant i

- governm enthum an r i gh ts o r gani zat i on, and the pet i t i oner w as s ubs equent l yfol l ow ed and t hr eat ened by the par ami l i t ar i es w ho had att acke d the w om en. I d. W e hel d that C havarr i a’ s fea r w as “cl ear l yon acc ountof an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on” and r e j e c t e d th e I J ’ s a n d B I A ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s t o th e c o n tr a ry, f i n d i n g th a t th e a g e n c y ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s wer e n o t s u p p o r t e d by s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. I d. at521. W e expl ai ned: H ere , C hav arr i a t est i fi ed that , befo re the fir st i nci dent w i th the C O N A V I G U A w om en, he w as es s ent i al l yapol i t i cal

. A s w e not ed ea r l i er , he then offe r ed s ubs t ant i al and compel l i ng t es t i m onythat aft erthe i nci dent he w as put unders ur vei l l ance by the s ame m en w ho perpetr at ed the att ack o n the C O N A V I G U A w om en. T her e i s n o evi dence cas t i ng any doubton thi s t es t i m ony , and w e thi nk it cle a r th a t th e p a ra m ili tar ies tar g e ted C h a v a rria b e c a u se th e y a sc rib e d to h im a n a ss o c iatio n w ith th e C O N A V IG U A g ro u p th a t, a t m in im u m , co u ld be an t i -governm ent s ym pathi es. Id. Itg o es w ith o u t say ing that E sp ino sa-C o rt ez ’s l o n g -t erm aff i l i at i on w i th, and s uppor tof, the C ol om bi an governm entw as m uch more s i gni fi cantthan w as C havarr i a’ s fl eet i ng as s oci at i onM or eover , i n sugges t i ng thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez w as 8 r equi r ed t o “s how thathi s pol i t i cal opi ni on pl ay ed [a ] s i gni fi cant ro le in h is b u sin e ss c o n n e c tio n s w ith th e m ili tar y ” in o rd e r to p r o v e th a tth e F ARC i mp u t e d a p r o - g o v e rn me n t , a n t i

- F ARC op i n i o n t o h i m, th e BI A mi s s t a t e d th e p r e mi s e o f a n i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. ( A pp. at3. ) A tthe r ootof the conc eptof per s ecut i on on acc ountof i m puted pol i t i cal opi ni on i s the fa ct t hat “ p e r s e c u t i o n ma y b e o n a c c o u n t o f a p o l i t i c a l o p i n i on t he ap p li cantactual l yhol ds oron acc ountof one the [pe r s ecut or] h a s i mpu t e d t o h i m. ” Lu k wag o , 3 2 9 F. 3 d a t1 8 1 ( c i t at i on o m itt e d ). E sp in o sa -C o rte z w a s n o t re q u ir e d to p ro v e th a t h is b u s i n e s s c o n n e c t i o n s wi th t h e g o v e rn me n tr e s u l t e d f r o m a p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n h e h e l d i n o r d e rt o s h o w t ha t t he F ARC im p u ted a p o lit ica l o p in io n to h im b a se d u p o n h is c lo se ties to the governm ent

. See C or don- G ar ci a, 204 F. 3d at992.

- 24- w i th tw o m ember s of the C O N A V I G U A gr oup . In s hor t , the 8 B IA o v erloo k ed the o b v iou s p o li ti ca l o v erton es in the F A R C ’s pu rs uitof E spi no sa- C ort ez, w ho w ou l d have been of n o int eres t to th e g u e rrillas b u t f

o r h is lo n g -sta n d in g , c lo se a ss o c iatio n w ith the C ol om bi an governm ent

. C or don- G ar ci a, 204 F. 3d at992. T her e ar e tw o addi t i onal s i gni fi cant fac t s , over l ooked by the IJ and the B IA , that di sti n g u ish this case from E l i asZ acar i as . Fi r st, u n li k e the p eti ti o n er in E li as-Z ac arias, E sp i nos aC o rt ez en g ag ed in p rotracted resist an ce to the F A R C ’s r ec rui t m enteff

or t s . I n E l i as - Z aca r i as , the pet i t i onerw as approa ched byguerr i l l as on a s i ngl e occ as i on; E l i as - Z aca r i as r e f u s e d t h e i rs i n g l e e f

f o r ta tr e c ru i t m e n t( w i th o u t , a p p a r e n t l y, exp res si ng a n y p o li t i cal view s) and fl ed to the U nit ed S t at es.- 25- S e e E lias -Z a c a ria s, 5 0 2 U .S . at 4 7 9 -8 0 . B yc o n tra st, in th is c a s e , th e Es p i n o s a - Co r t e z f a mi l ywa s a p p r o a c h e d b yth e F ARC on m ul t i pl e occ as i ons , i ncl udi ng the occas i on i n w hi ch the FA R C agent s appr oache d X i m ena on the s tr eet , and Espi nos aC o rte z w a s re p e a ted lya sk e d to se rv e a s a n in f o rm a n t an d to ce ase p ro v id ing fo o d to the m il it ary . S ec o n d (an d m o re i m por t ant l y ) , al though the t r ans l at i on of hi s t es t i m onycoul d be cl earer , i ti s apparent that Espinos a -C ort ez, un l i ke E l i asZ ac arias, m ad e h is an ti -F A R C v iew s k n o w n to h is pe rsec u tors i n r ej ect i ng thei r advanc es . I n des cr i bi ng one of hi s excha nges w i th a FA R C cal l er , E s pi nos a- C ort ez t es t i fi ed as fol l ow s : “They j us ts t at ed thatno m om entw oul d I ac ce ptbeca us e theygo agai ns tm ypr i nci pl es . A t, at n o t i m e bec aus e w i th the e x p e ri e n c e th a t I h a d m yh a tr e d o f th e m w a s c o m p le te a n d I, I w an ted th em to b e e n em ies. ” (A p p . at 13 8

. ) T here are tw o p ossi ble w ay s t o i nterpretthe fir stof these se n ten c e s: e ith e r th a t E sp in o sa -C o rte z s ta ted d ire c tlyto h is FA R C pur s uert hathe w oul d noti nform forthem beca us e the FA R C w entagai ns thi s pr i n ciples, orthata mem berof the FA R C s t at ed t o E s pi nos a- C ort ez tha t E sp ino sa-C o rt ez w o u ld not j oi n the FA RC be c a us e the FA RC w e nta ga i ns thi s pr i nci ples

. U nderei theri nt erpr et at i on, the s ign ifi cantpoi nti s that E s pi nos a- C ort ez’ s t es t i m onyd em o n str ates u n m ist ak abl ythatthe FA R C w as aw ar e that E s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s r efus al t o w or k forthe gu err i l l as st em m ed from his anti -FA R C pri ncipl es. U nli ke in E li as-Z ac arias, w h ere itw as u n clea r w h ethe r th e p eti ti o n er’s r es i s t ance t o the guer r i l l as w as m ot i vat ed by pol i t i cal bel i efs or

“ ind iffe ren ce , ind ec isi v en ess, an d ri sk av e rs e n e s s ,” E li as-Z ac arias, 50 2 U

. S

. at 4 8 3 , in th is ca se w e k n o w (an d , m o re i m por t ant l y , the F A R C knew ) thatE s pi nos a- C or t ez’ s r es i s t ance- 26- w as m ot i vat ed atl eas ti n part by hi s ant i

- FA R C s ent i m ent

. T he g u erril las’ co n ti n u ed threa ts in the fa ce o f E sp ino sa-C o rt ez ’s s t at ed opp o sit i on t o the FA R C demonstr at e a c l os e nexus betw een the FA R C ’ s thr eat s and Espi nos a- C or t ez’ s pol i t i cal o p in io n s th a t w a s a b s e n t in E lia s -Z a c a ri a s . I n thi s r es pect , even i f the B I A concl uded thatE s pi nos aC or t ez w as not i ni t i al l y t ar get ed on ac countof i m put ed pol i t i cal bel i efs ( a conc l us i on that , as w e not ed above , i s underm i ned by the pri nci pl es of C or don- G ar ci a) , he w as eventual l ythr eat ened, a t le a s t in p a rt , o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l b e lie f

s . T h a t is , a r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be com pel l ed t o concl ude thatthe FA R C , bythr eat eni ng a governm ent

- aff i l i at ed per s on aft erthat per s on m ade hi s ant i

- F A R C vi ew s know n, had thr eat ened per s ecut i on atl eas ti n parton acc ountof the vi ct i m ’ s pol i t i cal bel i efs

. A s the Second Ci r cui thas expl ai ned: [ P ]e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f o n e g ro u n d [ d o e s n o t] p rec lud e[ ] a w ell -g ro u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof another

. [T he pet i t i oner ] di d t es t i fy , as the B I A em phas i zed, that the FA R C [i ni t i al l y ] t ar get ed herb ec au se of he r know l edge of

her co m put er s , a r eas on unr el at ed t o pol i t i cal opi ni on. B ut s he al s o t es t i fi ed thats he w oul d be t ar g eted b ythe FA R C i n the futur e for betr ay i ng them, w hi ch, w h en coupl ed w i th the g o v e r n me n t ’ s u n wi l l i n g n e s s t o c o n tr o l th e F ARC, coul d w el l qual i fyas per s ecut i on fo r an i m put ed p o litic a l o p in io n (o p p o s itio n to th e F A R C ). D e lg a d o , 5 0 8 F .3 d a t 7 0 6 -0 7

. T h re a ten in g a p e rso n w ith d e a th fornotcol l abor at i ng w i th the FA R C , aft erthe r eci pi entof the- 27- threatm ade clear that his refusal w as “becau se theygo against [his ] pr i ncipl es, ” i s pers ecuti on on accou nt of po l i t i cal beli efs. (A p p . at 13 8

. ) A lt h o u g h o u r re v iew o f th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t a p e rso n d o e s n o t h a v e a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n is defe r ent i al , the B I A m ayno ts i m pl yover l ook evi dence i n the r ecor d thats uppor t s the appl i cant ’ s cas e. See B inR ashed, 502 F. 3d at673; s ee a l s o V al di vi ezo- G al damez , 5 0 2 F. 3d at289; M e ma v . Go n z a l e s , 4 7 4 F

. 3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ An appl i cantforas y l um i s ent i t l ed t o a r eas oned ana l y s i s , notone w h ich w h o llyd isre g a rd s re lev a n t, pr o b a tiv e e v id e n c e .”). In th is c a se , the B IA o v e rlo o k e d th e in e sc a p a b le p o lit ica l o v e rto n e s in th e F A R C ’s p u rs u it o f E sp in o sa -C o rte z , an d it co m p lete ly di s r egar ded evi dence s how i ng th a tth e FARC knew of Espi nos aC or t ez’ s ant i

- FA R C pr i nci pl es , even a s the guerr i l l as thr eat ened him for no tbetray i ng tho se pri ncipl es. U nd er these c irc u m sta n c e s, a re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to concl ude thatthe thr eat s l evi ed bythe FA R C w er e mot i vat ed, at lea st in p a rt, b ya p o lit ic a l o p in io n th e F A R C im p u ted to E sp ino sa-C o rt ez . S ee 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). In g ra n ti n g E sp in o sa -C o rte z ’s p e tit io n , w e d o n o t h o ld th a t an y p e rso n a f

f ili a ted w ith a f

o re ig n g o v e rn m e n t w h o is th re a ten e d b ya n a n ti-g o v e rn m e n t o rg a n iza tio n h a s n e c e ss a rily been thr eat ened on the bas i s of i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on . In this c ase , E sp ino sa-C o rt ez (1) testi fied ab o u t his l o n g -t erm as s oci at i on w i th the C ol om bi an governm entand mi li ta ry , ( 2) m ade hi s l i vi ng bypr ovi di ng s uppor t to tho s e i ns t i tut i ons , ( 3) w o u ld n o t h a v e c o m e to th e g u e r r ill a s’ a tten tio n b u t f o r h is r el at i ons hi p w i th the governm entand mi l i t ary , ( 4) r ebuff ed r epea t ed overtur es fr om the FA R C t o j oi n w i th them, and ( 5)- 28- e x p r e s s l yma d e h i s a n t i

- F ARC op i n i o n s k n o wn t o th e F ARC agent s att empt i ng t o r ecrui thi m. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , the B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e F A R C ’s th re a ts w e re n o t c e n tra lly m o tiv a ted b ya p o lit ica l o p in io n th e g u e rrilla s im p u ted to E s pi nos a- C or t ez i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the re c o rd

. III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr ant the pet i t i on for re v ie w .