Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. * Not for P ublication in West’s F ederal Reporter 

# U nitedStates C ou rt o f App eal s

For th e Firs t C ircuit

No. 07-1800 ANA MARGARITA HERNANDEZ-CABANA, HECTOR ENRIQUE ROMERO,

and ANGELICA MARIA ROMERO-HERNANDEZ,

Petitioners,

v . MICHAEL MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL of the UNITED STATES, Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before Howard, Circuit Judge, Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge, and Siler, Senior Circuit Judge. *
Damon M. D’Ambrosio, for petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Anthony Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Department of Justice, for respondent.

February 5, 2008Hernandez-Cabana is the lead petitioner. Hector Enrique 1 Romero, her husband, and Angelica Maria Romero Hernandez, her minor daughter, maintain derivative claims. Hernandez-Cabana also applied for asylum and protect ion 2 under the Convention Against Torture. Those claims are not before us. -2-

SILER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitioner An a M argarita Hernandez-Cabana, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions this 1 court for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her withholding of removal claim. We deny review for reasons stated hereafter.
I . H e r n andez-Cabana last entered the United States in May 2000, and the government initiated removal proceedings against her in January 2004. She conceded removability but applied for withholding of removal. 2

Hernandez-Cabana began working as an assistant district attorney in Colombia in 1997, and she began receiving threatening telephone calls in April 1999. She w a s t o l dthat if she did not quit her job, harm would come to her and her family. The c a l ls continued until June 1999, when she resigned and the calls stopped. She came to the United States in August 1999 a n d r e m a i n ed until February 2000, when she returned to Colombia. She testified that she spent several months in hiding before returning to the United States in May 2000. When she was in Colombia in 2000, either she or her husband received a threatening phone call.-3- The IJ denied Hernandez-Cabana’s withholding claim, relying on Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 658, 661 (BIA 1998). He found that although Hernda n d e z - Cabana was almost entirely credible, he did not believe her testimony that either she or her husband received a threat after her resignation. The BIA summarily affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision.
II. Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms t h e IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision directly. S t r o n i v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 82, 86-87 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 350 (1st Cir. 2005)). We “review the BIA’s additions to the IJ’s decision directly.” Id. at 87. We review the IJ’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard, and such findings shall not be overturned unless the record compels reversal. Id. (citing Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004)). We review conclusions of law de novo, “‘with appropriate deference to the agency’s interpretation of the underlying statute in accordance with administrative law principles.’” Id. (quoting Gailus v. INS, 147 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 1998)).

The Attorney Ge n e r al should withhold the removal of an alien to a country if “the al i e n ’ s l ife or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006). In a withholding claim-4-

the alien must “establish a clear probability of persecution.” Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir. 2005).

In Fuentes, the BIA held t h a t “ the dangers faced by policemen as a result of that status alone are not ones faced on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 19 I. & N. Dec. at 661. The BIA found that policemen are often attacked b e c ause they are “highly visible embodiments of the power of the state.” Id.

Hernandez-Cabana argues her employment as an assistant district attorney distinguishes this case fro m F uentes. While there may be scenarios where a government official involved in law enforcement should not be precluded f rom making an asylum or withholding claim, see Abaya v. INS, 2 F. App’x 850, 851 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2001) (unpublished) (rejecting a per se rule of ineligiblity based on Fuentes), this is not such a scenario.

In this case, Hernandez-Cabana chose to w o r kas an assistant district attorney, a position that made her a highly visible embodiment of the power of Colombia. See Mediouni v. INS, 314 F.3d 24, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2002). It was Hernandez-Cabana’s burden to establish that the threats she received were on account of one of the five enumerated grounds and not because of the nature of her employment. See Ang, 430 F.3d at 58. However, the evidence suggests she received the threats precisely because of her position

as a n a s s i s t a n t d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e c o r d does-5-

not compel the reversal of the IJ’s conclusion that the threats Hernandez-Cabana received were not on account of one of the five enumerated grounds. See Stroni, 454 F.3d at 87.

Furth e r , H e r n a n d e z - C a b a n a d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t s h e is subjected to persecution because of her status as a f o rmer prosecutor. Such an argument could be more compelling than her argument in this case. See Mediouni, 314 F.3d at 28 (“In Fuentes, the [BIA] held that status a s a former policeman is an immutable characteristic, and that mistreatment resulting f r o msuch status could be found to be persecution on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”). In this case, that argument would also fail because the record does not support it. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the threats stopped after Hernandez-Cabana resigned. Thus, she cannot demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on her status as a former assistant district attorney.
III. For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the order of the BIA. Petitions denied.