FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1464 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AN os. A 78- 584- 998 & A 78- 584- 999 AUGUSTO GA RCIA- VALDERRAMA, MARIA ELVIRA MATIZ, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 6, 200 5)
Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Petitioners Augusto Garcia -V alderram a and Maria Elvira Matiz, his wife, citizens and residents of Colom bia, S . A ., entered the United States as noni m m igr an t vi sit or s onAugus t 5, 200 0; the y ha d th e ri ght

to re m ai n he re unt il Fe br uary 4, 200 1. T he y

stay ed be y ond that date , how ev er , and, on S ep te m be r 10, 2002 , w er e se rv ed

w ithN oti ce s to Appe ar

f or r em ova l pr oc ee din gs. P ri or to be ing
se rv ed , V al de rr am a fi le d a ppl ic at ion s f

or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l on behalf of him self and Matiz. He asked for asy lum because he had been persec uted in Colom bia by the FA RC, a guerrilla f

action kno wn for violence, and feared further per secution at their hands if re turned to Colo m bia. A n I m m igr at ionJud ge ( IJ ) he ld a he ar ing on the appl ic at ion s onMarc h 10 , 2003
. A ft er

c onsi de ri ng the e vid en ce pr es en te d, inc lud ing te sti m ony f ro m Va lderram a, the IJ ordere d petitio ners deported to Colom bia. T he IJ found what V a l d e rr a mas a i dt o b e c r e d i b l e b u ti n s u f f i c i e n tt o mak e o u tac l a i m f o r a s yl u m. T he te sti m ony

w as ins uf

fi ci en t, the I J he ld, be ca

use the part

r el at ing to his pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s w as not spe ci fi c en oughand, m or eo ve r, f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a nexus between his poli tical opinio n and the FARC * s harassm ent. P etitioners appealed the IJ * s decision to the Board of I m m igration Appeals (BIA ); it aff irm ed th e d eci si on on Aug us t 1 3, 2 00 4. Th ey no w pet it io n t hi s co ur t fo r rev ie w. Beca use the petition ers * r em ova l pr oc ee din gs c om m en ce d a ft er

Apr il 1,As a pre liminary matter, a side from c heckingthe box i n his asylum application, 1 Valder rama failed to mention, duringthe administrative proc eeding s, that petitioners * asylum claim was ba sed on member ship in a particular g roup. Unde r 1NA § 242( d)(l), 8 U .S.C. § 12 52 (d )( l) , “ {a ] co ur

t ma y re vie w a fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l on ly if
. . . th e a lie n h a s e xha

us te d a ll a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s ava ila ble to t he a lie n a s o f r ight. ” Th is e xha us tio n r e qu ir e me nt i s jurisdictional, and pre cludes re view of a claim that has not bee n prese nted to the J J or the B IA. 3 1997 , the e ff

ec tiv e da te of

the I lle ga l i m

m igr at ionand R ef

orm and I m m igr an t Re spon sib ili ty

A ct of 199 6 ( II RI RA ), thi s c as e is g ove rn ed by the pe rm an en t pr ov is io ns of t he Im

m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (I NA), as a m en de d b y IIRIRA. Beca use the BIA , in af

firm ing th e IJ * s decision, expressly adopted the IJ * s reasoning, our reviewfocuses on the IJ * s de ci sio n. A l- N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1262 , 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). W e re view the I J * s a

ppl ic at ionof

the lawde nov o. Mo ham m ed v. A shc ro ft , 261 F.3d 124 4, 1247-48 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). W e re view I J * s finding s of fac t under th e h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t es t, h owe ve r, whi ch m ean s t ha t we vie wthe r ec or d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to the [ IJ J * s de ci sio n and drawa ll
re as ona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of that de ci sio n. ” A de fe m i v. A shc ro ft , 386 F . 3d 1022 , 102 6- 27 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( enbanc ) pe tit ionf or c er t. f ile d, ( U . S. O ct . 28, 2004 ) (N o. 04- 7944 ). I n othe r w or ds, w e “ m ust a ff irm the [ IJ ] * s de ci sio n if

it is supp orted by

rea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the rec ord considered as a w hole.”A l Na jj ar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84 (quoting Lor ism e v. IN S, 129 F. 3d 1 441, 144 4- 45 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) ). W e ar e pr ec lud ed f ro m w ei ghi ng the 1Se e e .g ., F e rn and e z-B e rn a l v. Attor ne y Ge n. of the Un ite d St ate s, 25 7 F .3 d 1 30 4, 13 17 n. 13 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) . A c c or din g ly , th e c la im that pe tit ion e rs we re me mbe rs of a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l gro up is unexhausted, and we are prec luded from r eviewingit. See Al Naj jar , 257 F.3d at 1293 (ref using to consider a

claim that was not ra ised befor e the JJ or B IA). 4 evidence. And we m ay

not reverse the I J * s finding s of fac t unless th e re cord
co m pe ls a c ontrary c onc lus ion
. F ar quahars on v . U nit ed S tate s A tto rn ey

G en . , 246 F. 3d 13 17, 1320 (llth Cir. 2001 ). A n a lie n who arr ive s in , or is pr es en t i n, the U nit ed

S tate s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . INA§ 208(a)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 1 158 (a)( 1). T he Attorney Ge neral has di sc ret io n t o g ran t as y lu m if t he ali en m eet s t he INA * s d efi ni ti on of a“ refu ge e.” IN A§ 20 8( b) (1 ), 8 U
. S. C. § 1 158( b) (1 ). A“ re fu ge e” is de fi ne d a s: any pe rs on who i s ou tsi de any c ountry of suc h pe rs on * s natio na lity . . . , and w ho i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l him se lf or he rs el f of

the pr ote ct ionof

, that c ountry

be ca use of pe rs ec uti on or aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, na tio na lity , m em

be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or pol iti ca l op ini on IN A§ 10 1( a) (4 2) (A ), 8 U
. S. C. § 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bu rd en of p ro vi ng st atut ory “ refu ge e” s ta tu s. Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. To establish asy lum

eligibilit y , the a lien m

ust, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution o n account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a

“ we ll-founded fear” that the statuto rily listed factor w ill cause such future pe rs ec uti on. 8 C
. F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) , ( b) ; A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87.5

W e ag re e w iththe S ec ond an d N inth C ir cu its that the re is no r equir em en t that pe rs ec uti on b e ba se d so le ly on a cc ount

of apr ote ct ed

gr ound
. S ee Bo rj a v. IN S, 175 F . 3d 7 32, 735 -3 6 ( 9thCi r. 199 9) ( enbanc ); O sor io v
. I N S, 18 F
. 3d 1 017, 1028 ( 2nd Ci r. 199 4) (” T he pla in m eanin g of the phr as e ‘ pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of the vic tim * s po lit ic al opi nio n, * doe s no t m ean pe rs ec uti on solely on a cc ount of the vic tim * s polit ical opinio n.”)
. If the a pplicant can sho w that the per secution was, at le as t i n part , m oti va te d by apr ote ct ed

gr ound , the n th e ap pli cant c ane sta bli sh eligibil ity for asy lum . S ee Borj a, 175 F.3d at 736 (hold ing th at evidence com pelled the c onc lus ionthat pe rs ec uti on w as on a cc ount of both po lit ic al opi nio n and atte m pts a t e xto rt ion , and tha t su cha“ m ixe d m oti ve s” c as e sa tis fi ed appl ic an t * s bur de n) ; se e al so I n r e S- P- , 21 I & N D ec . 486 ( BI A199 6) ( not ing that, in a m ixed m otive case, “ the standard for reviewis whether the a pplicant has p roduced
e v i d e n c e f

r o m wh i c h i ti s r e a s o n ab l e t o b e l i e v e th a tth e h arm wa s mo t i v a t e db y a protected ground”). Additionally , an asy lum

applicant m ay

qualify as a r efugee based on an im puted po litical opin ion no t actually held by the applicant. A l Na

jj ar, 257 F.3d at 1289 ( “ A n im

put ed pol iti ca l op ini on, w he the r co rr ec tly or inc or re ct ly a ttr ibu te d, *
m ay constitu te a ground for a ‘ we ll-founded fear * of pol iti ca l pe rs ec uti on w ith in the m eaning of the INA .” ) (quoting Morales v. IN S, 208 F.3d 323, 331 (1stCir.6

2000 ))
. I n th e ca se of

an im put ed pol iti ca l op ini on, the inquir y is not w he the r the ap pli cant h el d apart ic ular pol iti ca l op ini on, but w he the r his a lle ge d pe rs ec uto rs , ei the r co rr ec tly

or inc or re ct ly , a ttr ibu te d apart ic ular pol iti ca l op ini on t o th e ap pl ic an t. Vera -Val era v . INS, 14 7 F .3d10 36 , 10 38 -3 9 (9 th Cir . 19 98 ). The r ecord in this case com pels the conclusi on that th e FA RC tar geted Va lderram a, in part, bec ause of his polit ical opinio n. T he IJ * s ho ldi ng tha t he failed to show that his harm wa s linked to his pol itical opini on was theref ore erroneous. A dditi onally , bec ause the IJ fa iled to determ ine whether the petition ers suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n or

e sta bli she d th at

the y have aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of futur e pe rs ec uti on, w e m

ust r em an d th e ca se to al lowthe a ge nc y to de ci de the iss ue in the f

ir st i nst an ce . A cc or din gly , the pe tit ionis gr an te d, and the c as e is
re m an de d to the BI Af

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. PE TITION GRA NTE D .