2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-30-2008 

# Gome z -Zuluag a v

. Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2674

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Gomez -Zuluag a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1082. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1082P RE CE DE NT I AL
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. 07- 2674

CL AUDI A R OC I O GOMEZ

- Z UL UAGA,
Pet i t i oner

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 fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 98 497 068) I m m i gr at i on J udge: D or ot hyH arbeck

A r gued J anuary10, 2008 Be f o r e : F I S HE R, HAR DI M AN a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: M ay30, 2008)2 Ra c h e l l e Ab r a h a mi A l es s andr a D eB l as i o ( A r gued) Shear m an & St er l i ng 599 L exi ngt on A venue N ew Y or k, N Y 10022 A t t or neys f

orP et i t i oner Je f f re yL . M e n k in M i chae l P. L i ndemann E t han B

. K ant er( A r gued) 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 P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTA l t hough Pet i t i oner ’ s s ur nam es ar e hyphenat ed 1 ( “G om ez- Z ul uaga” ) i n t he ca s e ca pt i on, accordi ng t o her couns el , M s . G om ez Z ul uaga doe s nothyphenat e hers ur names and w e w i l l l i kew i s e fol l ow t hi s pr act i ce. 3 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. C l audi a R oci o G om ez Zul uaga ( “Pet i t i oner ”) s eeks 1 re v iew o f

a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “ BI A” ) a f

f i r mi n g t h e d e n i a l o f

h e rr e q u e s tfo ra s y l u m, w i t hhol d ing o f r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n in p a rt a n d d e n yit i n p a rt.

I . BA CKGROUND
Pet i t i oner , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a, w as bor n on J ul y3, 1987, i n a rur al r egi on nearSan Fr anci s co, C ol om bi a. D ur i ng m os tof herl i fe, t he Fuer zas A r m adas R evol uci onar i as de C ol om bi a ( “FA R C ”) , a l eft i s t guerr i l l a r evol ut i onarygr oup, w as act i ve thr oughout m u ch of C ol om bi a. T he FA R C w as offi ci al l yform ed i n 1966 and has cont i nuous l yand oft en vi ol ent l yoppos ed t he C ol om bi an governm ents i nce thatt i m e. T he FA R C i s des i gnat ed as a t err or i s t or gani zat i on by t he U ni t ed St at es G over nm ent

. W hi l e the FA R C i s ac t i ve thr oughout C o lo m b ia, i t h o ld s p a rticu lar sw a y in m a n y ru ra l a re a s w h e re it ef fe cti v elyco n tr o ls l o ca l po li ti cs an d the c ivil ian p o p u lat ion

. In 2002, aft erpeac e negot i at i ons betw een the F A R C and the C ol om bi an governm entbr oke dow n, vi ol ence es cal at ed and the FA R C began t o s peci fi cal l yt ar getci vi l i ans . A l t hough t he4 F A R C h a s u se d a v a rie ty o f m e th o d s to f

in a n c e a n d p ro se c u te its g u e rilla w a r, o n e in tim id a tio n tec h n iq u e it h a s re g u lar lyu se d is t o ban w om en and gi r l s fr om fr at erni zi ng w i t h m ember s of t he s ecur i t yfor ces , pol i ce of fi cer s , oroffi ci al s of t h e C ol om bi an gover nm ent

. Such w om en have occa s i onal l y been deemed “mi l i t aryt ar get s . ” W om en w ho have tr ans gr es s ed the ban ha ve oft en bee n t ar get ed fori n ti m ida t i on, ki dnappi ng, r ape, and m u rde r. Pet i t i oner ’ s fi rst exper i ence w i t h t he FA R C occurr ed w hen sh e w as si x y ear s ol d. A tt hatt i m e, a number of arm ed guer i l l as comm andee r ed her fami l y ’ s farm i n rur al L a B r et ana. T he guerr i l l as p resse d t he fa m i l ym ember s i nt o s er vi ce dur i ng t hei ro ccupa t i on, r equi r i ng t hem t o run a var i etyof err ands for t hem. A tone poi n t d ur i ng t hi s occupa t i on, Pet i t i onerhear d a guns hot , and mi nut es l at erw i t nes s ed the guer i l l as pas s byt he farm hous e ca r r y i ng a dead body i n a cot

. A l t hough s he di d not rec o g n i ze the dece ase d p erso n , the in cide n t m ad e P eti ti o n er v ery afr ai d. Shor t l yaft ert hi s , Pet i t i oner ’ s father , fea r ful t hatt he FARC w o u l d r e tu r n , mov e d t h e f a mi l y t o a n o t h e r ru r a l a r e a , La G r anj a.
D ur i ng hert i m e i n L a G r anj a, P et i t i onerw i t nes s ed and exper i ence d m any m or e encount er s and confr ont at i ons w i t h t he FA R C and the col l at er al eff ect s of ci vi l w ar . W hen s he w as elev en , h er f

am il yfin all yleft L a G ran ja d u e to the F A R C ’s d isp lac e m e n t o f

c iv ili a n p o p u latio n s. P e tit io n e r ’ s p a re n ts m oved back t o her bi r t hpl ace , San Fr anci s co, about an hour

- anda -h a lf d riv e f ro m L a G ra n

ja, w h ile P e tit io n e r w e n t to liv e w ith hers i s t ert w o t o t hr ee hour s aw ay in t he r el at i ve s afe t yof5 M edel l i n. A s s he w as s t i l l a veryy oung per s on att he t i m e, s he oft en w entt o vi s i therpar ent s i n San Fr anci s co.
I n A ugus t 2003, w hen P et i t i oner w as s i xt een, s he bega n d ati n g a m il it aryo ff

icer w h o li v ed in L a G ran ja. In F eb rua ry 2004, s he w entt o San Fr anci s co t o vi s i t her par ent s . W hi l e s he w as att he fam i l y hom e, a m an knocked on t he doorand t ol d her t hats he had t o come w i t h hi m . H e t hen t ook hert o an out door pl ay i ng fi el d w her e s he obs er ved addi t i onal ar m ed m en and m anyother w om en w ho had bee n br oughtt her e unders i m i l ar d u re ss . T h e m e n id e n tifie d th e m se lv e s a s b e in g a f f ili a ted w ith t he FA R C and t ol d t he w om en that t he FA R C knew that t hey w er e “w i t h m i l i t ary offi ci al s ” and thats uch beha vi orw as an “i ns ul t ” t o t he FA R C

. T he m en t ol d t hem t hatbei ng w i t h t he so ld ier s w a s th e e q u iv a le n t o f b e in g a g a in st th e F A R C , an d if t he w om en “di d not end i t w i t h t hem, ” t hen “s om ethi ng [w oul d] h a p p e n to [ th e m ] o r t h e irf a m ilie s .”
T he F A R C detai ned t he w om en fo r near l yt w o h ou rs , dur i n g w h ich t i m e Pet i t i onerr eca l l s bei ng veryafr ai d and w or r i ed. A ddi ng t o her fea r , a number of t he w om en i nfor m ed h er tha t th eyh ad p rev iou sly b ee n k idn ap p ed fo r da ti n g m il it ary offi cer s . M or eover , Pet i t i onerdi d not know how t he FA R C w as ev en aw are o f th e f

ac t th at sh e h ad b ee n d ati n g a m ilit ary o f f ice r. B e f

o re re lea si n g th e w o m e n , the g u e rillas o b liq u e ly w ar ned t hem t hatt heys houl d r emem berw hatt hey h ad bee n t ol d, and thatt h ey sh oul d payat t ent i on t o i t

. A l t hough P e tit io n e r h a d n o t b e e n p h y sic a llyh a rm e d , sh e f e a re d f o r b o th herow n and herfami l y ’ s s af ety

. B el i evi ng t he thr eatt o be genui ne, s he r el uct ant l ybr oke off h er rel at i ons hi p w i t h t he m i l i t ar yoffi cerfr om L a G r anj a.6 Pet i t i onercont i nued hers tu di es i n M edel l i n. B y2005, her m o t h e rh a d mov e d i n wi t h h e ri n M e d e l l i n b e c a u s e t he FA R C s et o ff a n u m berof ca rbom bs i n San Fr anci s co and caus ed pr obl ems w i t h t he tr ans por t at i on s y s t em. Pet i t ioner began da t i ng a pol i ce of fi cerfr om M edel l i n, t hi nki ng t hatt he FA R C w oul d have n o w ayof know i ng of heract i vi t i es i n t hat ci t y . T hr oughoutt hi s t i m e, Pet i t i onercont i nu ed to vi s i ther fatheri n San Fr anci s co r egul ar l y . D u r i ng one vi s i ti n t he s um m erof 2005, an arm ed man came t o herfather ’ s hous e and t hr eat eni ngl y i nt i m at ed thats he “w oul d fi nd i tpr efe r abl e” t o do as he i ns t ruct ed and a ccompanyhi m . A l t hough s he w as “s car ed beca u se o f w hathappene d t o [her ] t he fi r s tt i m e, ” s he agr eed, and t hey p roceede d on foott o a hi l l yar ea on the out s ki r t s of to w n . T h e re th e ym e t u p w ith tw o o th e r m e n , a r m e d w ith amm uni t i on and gr enade s , w ho w ore F A R C col or s and i dent i fi ed t hemsel ves as m ember s of t he guer i l l a or gani zat i on.
T h e m e n to ld h e r th a t “it a p p e a re d th a t [ sh e ] h a d n ’t p a id a n ya tten tio n to w h a t th e yh a d to ld h e r th e las t t im e , a n d it lo o k e d lik e s h e w a s s till g o in g o u t w i t h

. . . th e p o lic e .” Pet i t i onercoul d notunder s t and how t hes e m en knew abouther relatio n sh ip in M ed ell in, bu t th e m en told h er tha t th eyw ere “aw ar e of e v ery t hi ng [s he] di d, [and] t hatt heyw er e w at chi ng [ h e r].” S h e b e c a m e “ v e rysc a re d ” th a t th e yw e re g o in g to k ill herordo s om ethi ng t o her

. T he men cont i nued t o det ai n herfor aboutan hour , and t hen r el eas ed her , admoni s hi ng her t hati f s he “w as in fa v orof t he arm yorof t he pol i ce, t hen [s he] m us tbe a g a in s t th e m .”
U pon r etur ni ng t o M edel l i n, Pet i t i oner “bac ked off , ” and t hen, i n A ugus t2005, ended he rr el at i ons hip w i t h t he pol i ce7 offi cer . She t ol d hi m t h at t he FA R C had s om ehow l earned of t hei r r el at i ons hi p, t hat t hey cont i nued t o w at ch her , and thatt hey t ol d hert hats he coul d notdat e a pol i ce of fi cer . H e t ol d hert hat des pi t e hi s pos i t i on as a pol i ce of fi cer , t her e w as notm uch that he coul d do t o p rotec ther , gi ven thatt he FA R C per vaded the ent i r e countr yand s he w oul d al w ay s be vul ner abl e.
I n J anuary2006, Pet i t i oner agai n vi s i t ed herfatheri n San F ra n c isc o . D u rin g h e r sta y , an a rm e d m a n a p p r o a c h e d h e r in b road day l i gh t at t he l ocal chu rch and ordered her t o go w ith h i m . D e s p i t e t h e f

a c tt h a tt h e r e w e r e o t h e rp e o p l e n e a rb y, P e titio n e r w a s “ v e rysc a re d ” b yth e m o re b ra z e n n a tu re o f th is encount erand agr eed t o go w i t h hi m . T he ar m ed m an cove r ed herey es , and gr i ppi ng her by herhands , began t o l ead he routof to w n . B e c a u se sh e w a s b li n d f o ld e d , P e tit io n e r c o u ld n o t tell w her e t he ma n was t a k i n g h e r . Aft e rn e a r l yt wo h o u r s of w alkin g , they arrived at a sm all em p tyh o u se w h ere th eyw ere m e t b ya n u m b e r o f

o th e r a rm e d m e n . P e tit io n e r w a s c h a in e d to a bed, and w hen she as ked w hys he had be en abduc t ed, t he men r emai ned s i l ent

. T hi s cont i nued u n ti l t he nextday , w hen Pet i t i oneragai n as ked the m w hyt heyhad abduc t ed her , s i nce s he hadn’ tbeen goi ng outw i t h any one. T he m en t ol d her“that w as n’ ti t , t hat t hey had i nt ent i ons for m e w i t h t hem. ” The m en k e p tP e t i t i o n e rc h a i n e d t o t he be d f o rt h e d u r a t i o n o f

h e rt i me t h e r e , o n l ya l l o wi n g h e rt o b e u n c h a i n e d t o g o t o t h e b a t h r o o m, a n d a lw a y s w ith o n e o f

th e g u e rillas p re se n t.
P e tit io n e r c o n tin u e d to b e g f o r h e r life th ro u g h o u t th is or deal

. E ventual l y , s he t ol d t he m en t hat s he w as a s tudentand th a t sh e w a s s tu d y in g to b e a d e n tal h y g ien ist. S h e f u rth e r to ld t hem t hats he w as t he onl yper s on i n herfami l yt o m ake i ts o far8 in s c h o o l. S h e im p lo re d th e m to let h e r g o so th a t sh e c o u ld compl et e hers tudi es , t r y i ng t o t hi nk of “a ny t hi ng I coul d s o t hey w oul d l etm e go . ” U pon l earni ng t hatPet i t i onerw as s tudy i ng t o b e a hea l t h p rofessi on al , t he m en b egan t o tal k am on gst them selv es, an d o n e o f th e m en rem ark ed that itw as “ v ery good. ” The m en t hen l eftPet i t ion er alon e aga i n fora w hi l e. A f ter re tu rn in g , the yin f

o r m e d h e r th a t th e yw e re g o in g to r el eas e her , and thatonce s he compl et ed her s tudi es ( w i t hi n fi ve mo n t h s o f t h e a b d u c t i o n ) , s h e wa s t o r e tu r n a n d wo r k f o rt h e m. K eepi ng herey es cover ed, t he m en unchai ned her , and t hen l eft herneart he t ow n. I n al l , t he FA R C had confi ned Pet i t i onerfor ei gh tday s.
D ur i ng t he t i m e t h at s he w as aw ay , ar m ed guer i l l as vi s i t ed Pet i t i oner ’ s fatherathi s hom e and t ol d hi m t hatt heyhad ki dnapped her

. T hey w arned hi m t hat i f he t ol d anybody , t hey w oul d ki l l her

. A s a r es ul t , herfatherbeca m e ver yw or r i ed w hen s he di d notim m ed iat el yr etur n. A ft erbei ng r el eas ed, Pet i t i onerm ade her w ay t o her father ’ s hous e, w her e herfather w as “veryhappy ” t o s ee he rand t o l ea r n t hats he had notbeen phy s i cal l yi nj ur ed. N eit hers he norherfami l yr epor t ed the i nci dentt o t he pol i ce f

orfea rof r epr i s al

. She r eca l l ed thats he o n lytold h er f

am il ya “ li tt le b it ” be ca u se of the trau m ati c n ature of t he e xp e r i e nc e a nd s he di d no t gi ve de t a i l s . I n her w ords,

“ [ n ]o b o d yk n e w .”
T he ver y n ext day , Pet i t i onerdepart ed forM edel l i n. Si nce t h at tim e, s he has notr etur ned t o San Fr anci s co and ha s nots een he rfatheragai n. A lt h o u g h s he r emai ned i n cont act w i t h hi m fo r a n ot hert w o m ont hs , hi s cal l s s uddenl ycea s ed9 ar ound M ar ch 2006, and no one i n herfami l yhas r ece i ved any c o mmu n i c a t i o n f

r o m h i m.
T he days he l eft for M edel l i n, Pet i t i onerr ece i ved a phone cal l on her cel l ph on e fro m a person ident i fy i ng him sel f as a m ember of t he F A R C

. H e t ol d her t hat s he w as bei ng w at ched and thatt he FA R C knew every t hi ng about her l i fe. T heycal l ed h er o n e to th ree ti m es p er m o n th, t ell in g h er tha t th eyw ere w at chi ng herand w ai t i ng forhert o fi ni s h her stud ies, and c o n s t a nt l y r e mi n d i n g h e ro f h e rp r o mi s e t o wo r k f o rt h e m. W hen she fi nal l yfi ni s hed hers tudi es , s he “r eal i zed that[s he] had t o l eave the countr y ” bec aus e the fa ctt hatt he FA R C had tr ac k ed h er to M ed ell in m ea n t tha t sh e w as n o t safe in an yp art of t he countr y . T he FA R C had ef fec t i vel ythreat ened he r everyw her e t hats he h ad ev erl i ved, i ncl udi ng L a B r et ana, M edel l i n, L a G r anj a, and San Fr anci s co. She bel i eved thatt he F A R C w o u ld p u rsu e h e r re len tles sly , h a v in g p re v io u sly t hr eat ened orat t acke d ot herm ember s of her fami l y , i ncl udi ng hers i s t er , uncl e, and cous i n. H ers i s t er ’ s hus b an d had bee n ki dnapped a nd t hei rhous e had be en b o m b ed. H eruncl e had b e e n sh o t f

o r ref u sin g to c o o p e ra te w ith th e F A R C

. H e r c o u sin h a d b e e n f

o r c e d to w o rk f

o r th e F A R C . W h e n h e r c o u sin es cape d fr om t hi s i nvol unt arys er vi tude, the FA R C m ur der ed hi m . Sh e b e l i e v e d t h a t n o w t h a t s h e h a d g r a d u a t e d , i f s he re f u se d to w o rk f

o r th e F A R C , “w h a t h a p p e n e d to h e r c o u sin w o u ld h a p p e n to [ h e r] , a ls o .”
I n J une 2006, Pet i t i onerdeci ded to go t o t he U ni t ed St at es . A y earbefor e, aft ert he fi r s t t w o abduct i ons , s he had t r i ed and fai l ed t o obt ai n a vi s a. T hi s t i m e, fea r i ng forherl i fe, sh e p a id a m a n n e a rly$ 1 ,0 0 0 f o r a c o u n ter f

e it S p a n ish p a ss p o rt.Pet i t i onerr emai ned i n det ent i on dur i ng t hi s per i od, and 2 hers i s t er( l i vi ng i n B os t on) , t o w hom Pet it ion er had entrus t ed h e rmo b i l e ph on e , r e c e i v e d a n u mb e ro f c a l l s f r o m F ARC m em b ers w h o co n ti n u ed to threa ten P eti ti o n er. 10 S h e e n tered the U n it ed S tat es on Ju ly 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , thro u g h N ew ark I nt er nat i onal A i rpor tw her e she w as det ai ned upon di s coveryof her act ual i den t i t y . D uri ng an i nterview w i th authori t i es, Pet i t i onerexpl ai ned herr eas ons forent er i ng t he U n i t ed St at es i l l egal l y , and thats he fe ar ed w hatm i g h t h ap p en t o heri f s he w e re re tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia. A f e w d a y s la ter , the F A R C a g a in at t empt ed t o cont act heron hercel l phone, w hi ch s he had gi ven to h er sist er. T h ey told h er sist er that P eti ti o n er “sh o u ld ap p ea r, th a t it w o u ld b e b e tte r i f [ s h e ] a p p e a re d .”
Pet i t i onerw as pl ace d i n r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s a n d g r a n t ed a hea r i ng dat e of D ece m ber19, 2006 befor e an i m m i gr at i on jud g e (“ IJ ” ) (an ad d it ion al he aring reg ard ing the P eti ti o n er’s ref u g ee statu s ca tego ryw as h eld o n D ec em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). 2 Pet i t i onerr eques t ed as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef undert he C A T

. S h e subm i t t ed a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on, an af fid av itfro m an ex p ert on L ati n A m erica, a n d a b ri ef in su p p o rt of hercl ai m , w i t h A m nes t yI nt ernat i onal and t he U ni t ed St at es St at e D epart m entdocument at i on at t ache d.
O n J anuary 4, 2007, t he I J i s s ued a deci sion an d or der de n y i n g Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g of rem o v al, an d re lie f u n d er the C A T

. T h e IJ f o u n d P eti ti o n er’s t es t i m onyt o be “c r edi bl e” a nd det er m i ned thatt he even ts that sh e d e sc rib e d w e re c o n si s te n t w ith th e re p o rts, a n d p lau sib leTh i s c h a n g e was ma d e b yt h e REA L I D A c to f 2005, 3 Pub. L

. N o. 109- 13, § 101( a) ( 3) , 119 St at

. 231, 303. 11 gi ven countr ycondi t i ons i ns i de of Col om bi a. She found, ho w ever, t hat as a m at t er of l aw P et i t i on er could no test abli sh t hat s he w as a r efug ee un der t he Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct (“ IN A ”) b ec au se sh e w as n o t able to s h o w that the F A R C ’s act i ons agai ns therw er e mot i vat ed bya p o l i t i cal opi ni on t hat had bee n i m put ed t o her , orbyh er m em b er s hi p i n a part i cul ar s oci al gr oup.
I n s uppo r to f

h e rd e c i s i o n , t h e I J p u rp o r t e d l yr e l i e d on I N A § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , s t at i ng t hat i n or der t o qual i fy forr efuge e s t atus , t he appl i cant “must demonst r at e t hat a pr ot ect ed gr ound w as orw ould be t he centr alr e a s o n f o rt h e p e r s e c u t i o n . ” As r efuge e s t atus i s a pr er equi s i t e for anys ucce s s ful as y l um a p p l i c a t i o n o rr e q u e s tf o rwi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 41 (b) (3), t he IJ concluded t hat Pet i t i on er’ s cl ai m s on these tw o b ase s m u st ne ce ssaril yfa il

. T h e IJ a lso d en ied P eti ti o n er’s C A T cl ai m , fi ndi ng t hatthe P et i t i onerfai l ed t o s how thats he w a s “ m ore l i kelyt han no tt o b e t ortured” u po n h er r eturn to C ol om bi a by“s om eone f r om t he governm en t, ” r el y i ng on Ma t t e ro f S

- V- , 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . 1 3 0 6 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ).
O n M ay 15, 2007, t he B I A uphel d t he IJ ’ s deci s i on. T he BI A a c k n o wl e d g e d t h a tt h e I J h a d i n c o r r e c t l yc i t e d I NA § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , w hi ch actual l y s t at es t hat a pr ot ect ed gr ound m us t cons t i tut e “at l eas tone ce nt r al r eas on” fort he per s ecut i on al l eged, r athert han, as t he I J s t at ed, “the ce nt r al r eas on. ” T he 3 B IA e ss e n tiallyf

o u n d th is e rro r to b e h a rm les s in lig h t o f itsPet i t i onerw as det ai ned upon entr yi nt o th e U ni t ed St at es 4 a n d re m a in e d in d e ten tio n d u rin g th is p ro c e ss , d e sp ite a ttem p ts byhercou n sel t o have he rr el eas ed. O n J ul y17, 2007, Pet i t i onerw as gr ant ed a St ay of R emoval dur i ng t he pende ncy o f h e ra p p e a l wi t h t h i s C o u r tp u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 4 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B) and t hu s conti nu ed t o rem ai n i n detent i on i n the U nit ed S t at es. O n N ovember 13, 2007, s he fi l ed a pro se m ot i on t o l i ftt he St ay o f R e m o v a l so th a t sh e m ig h t b e re lea se d f ro m d e ten tio n . In th is m ot i on, Pet i t i oneracknow l edged thats he under s t ood t hatl i ft i ng th e sta yo f

re m o v a l w o u ld su b

jec t h e r to re m o v a l to C o lo m b ia i m m edi at el y and s he had f ul l ycons i der ed the cons equenc es of herr eques t

. She averr ed thatdes pi t e the fa ctt hather “ fe ar of per s e c u t i o n i s a s s t r o n g a s e v e r [ , ] ” t h e d e t e n t i o n was , i n h er w o r d s , “ a f

f e c t i n g m e p h ys i c a l l y a n d d e s t r o y i n g m e m e n t a l l y” and s ugges t ed t hat her det ent i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es s er ved as a dai l yand unw el come r emi nder of t he i ndi gni t yof det ent i on at t he hands of t he FA R C

. I n D ece m ber2007, p ri o r t o or al ar gum ent , w e gra nt ed t he mot i on t o l i ftt he St ayof R emoval and on J anuary3, 2008, Pe ti t i onerw as r emoved t o C ol om bi a. 12 agreem e n t w ith t he IJ’ s fi nd i ng t hat the ev ents “d[id] notari se t o p ers ecuti on on accou nt of a prot ect ed ground

. ” T he B IA al so found t hatPet i t i onerd id n othave a w el l

- founded f earof p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t o f a p rotec ted g rou n d

. F inally , the B IA s um m ar i l yaff

i r m ed t he I J ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatPet i t i onerhad nots how n t hati tw as m o re l i kel yt han nott hats he w oul d be tortu red u p o n h er return to C o lom b ia an d thu s af firm ed the IJ’s d en ial o f h er C A T claim

. T h e B IA th e n o rd ere d P eti ti o n er’s r emoval t o C ol om bi a. Pet i t i onert i m el yfi l ed a pet i t i on for r evi ew on J une 4, 2007. 4B eca us e a f i nal or derof r emoval cr eat es “su ffi ci entcol l at er al cons equenc es , ” Pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval does not m oot herpet i t i on f o r r e v ie w . S e e A m a n

fi v. A sh c ro

ft , 3 2 8 F

. 3 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 4 -25 n .1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 13 II. J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW
T h e B IA p rop erlyex erc ised j ur isdicti o n o v er P eti ti o n er’s ap p ea l fro m the IJ’s d ec isi o n p u rsua n t to 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 1 (b). F i l j a v. G onz al es , 447 F. 3d 24 1, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. W e have juri sd ict ion to rev iew the B IA ’s de c is ion u n d er IN A § 2 4 2 (a). B eca us e the B I A adopt ed s om e of the fi ndi ngs of t he I J and m a d e a d d iti o n a l f

in d in g s, w e w ill re v iew th e d e c isio n s o f b o th t h e B IA a n d th e IJ

. Sant ana G onz al ezv. A t t ’ y G en. , 506 F. 3d 2 7 4 , 2 7 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ).
W e r evi ew l egal det er m i nat i ons byt he B I A de novo. Es cobarv. G onz al es , 4 1 7 F

. 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e th e r a n a p p lica n t’s p r o f f e re d “ p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p ” is cogni zabl e underI N A § 101( a) ( 42) ( A ) i s a quest i on of l aw , and is th e re f o re s u b je c t to d e n o v o re v ie w . I d. at 365 ( ci t i ng W

ang v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 4 )). Such de novo r evi ew of t he B I A ’ s l egal det er m ination s i s of cour s e “s ubj ect t o es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of def er ence ” s etouti n C h evr on v.T hes e pr i nci pl es , as r ei t er at ed i n L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 5 boi l dow n t o t he fol l ow i ng axi om : “[I ] f t he s t atut e is s i l entor ambi guous w i t h r es pectt o t he s peci fi c i s s ue, t he ques t i on fort he c o u rt is w h e th e r th e a g e n c y ’s a n sw e r is b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le cons t ruct i on of t he s t atut e. ” 329 F. 3d 157 , 1 6 7 (3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng C hevr on , 4 6 7 U

. S

. at 84 3 ).

14 N a tio n a l R e so u rc e s D e

fen se C o u n c il , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 ). See 5 W ang , 368 F. 3d at349.
T he pet it ionerhas t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng “per s ecut i on” and a “w el l

- founded f ear of per s ecut i on, ” w hi ch 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 orfr eedom. ” Y u v. A t t ’ y G en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 348 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); se e a lso L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 329 F. 3d 157, 167 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). W hethera peti t i on er has est abli shed th ese el ement s i s a ques t i on of fa ct , and the age ncydet er m i nat i on m us tbe uphel d i f i ti s s uppor t ed by“s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” i n t he re c o rd

. Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at167. O u r re v ie w i s confi ned s o l e l yt o t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d , I NA § 2 4 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A) , a n d we m us tt r eatt he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctas “conc l us i ve unl es s any r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n tra ry .” IN A § 2 4 2 (b )(4 )(B ); Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at167.

III . DI S CU S S I ON
O n appea l , Pet i t i o n er c hal l enges t he B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng herappl i cat i on fora s y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and15 r el i ef under t he C A T

. B eca us e the I J found Pet i t i onercr edi bl e, a det er m i nat i on l eftundi s turbed by the B I A , w e tr eat Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyas t rue and a ccur at e forpu rpo ses of our analy si s. A. AS YL UM
IN A § 2 0 8 (b) g ives the A tt o rne yG en era l or t h e S ec retary of H om el and Secur i t ydi s cr et i on t o gr antas y l um t o an al i en w ho q u a lifie s a s a “ re f

u g e e ” u n d e r IN A § 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ). U n d e r th is s ect i on, an appl i cantm us ts how t hatatt he t i m e of he r app l i cat i on , she i s a “p erso n w h o is ou tsi d e [ th e ] co u n tryo f [ h er] n a tio n a lity. . . w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to a v a il hi m s el f orher s el f of the pr ot ect ion of, t hat count r ybeca us e of per s ecut i on ora w el l

- founded fea rof pe rsec ut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cu lars oci al g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion [.]”
I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A)

. Th e s e c a t e g o r i e s – r a c e , r e l i g i on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, and po l i t i cal op i nion – are o ft en d escr i bed as “enu m erat ed g round s” or“pr ot ect ed gr ounds

. ” See , e. g. , Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at167. Pet i t i onerm us ts how anyper s ecut i on occurr ed or w i l l occurnot onl y“on ac countof” a pr ot ect ed ground, butt hatt he pr ot ect ed gr ound cons t i tut es “atl eas tone ce ntr al r eas on forper s ecut i ng the a p p li ca n t. ” IN A § 2 0 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ).A lth o u g h the IJ s e e m s to co n flate the p ast an d fu ture 6 “part i cul ar s oci al gr oup” cl ai m s , bot h t he bi fur cat ed s tructur e of t he as y l um s t atut e and ourcas e l aw s uppor tan appl i cant ’ s r i ght t o al l ege mem ber s hi p i n di ffe r ents oci al gr oups dependi ng on w h e th e r th e y a re m a k in g a “ p a st pe rse c u tio n ” c laim o r a “ w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n ” c la im

. See Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at167. 16 Pet i t i onerfirstcl ai m s t hats he qual i fi es foras y l um beca us e s he has been p er s ecut ed byt he FA R C i n t he pas ton a c c o u n to f

( 1 ) a p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n i mp u t e d t o h e rb yt h e F ARC bas ed on herr om ant i c as s oci at i on w i t h governm ent

- aff i l i at ed offi cer s , and ( 2) herm ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup t hat she def i nes a s “ [C olom bian] w om en w ho hav e t he shared p ast exper i ence of r el at i ons hi ps w i t h m i l i t aryand pol i ce men. ” She a lso c laim s th a t sh e q u a lifie s f o r a sy lu m b e c a u se sh e h a s a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof i m put ed p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n a n d me mbe r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r oup. F o r p u rp o se s o f

h e r f u tu re p e rse c u tio n c laim , P e tit io n e r p o sits t h a t“ u p o n h e r‘ e s c a p e ’ f r o m t h e F ARC

. . . [ P e t i t i o n e r ] b e c a me a m e m b e r of a n a rro w e r so c ial g ro u p th a n th e o n e p ro p o se d w ith r es pectt o t he pas t p erse cut i on s he s uffe r ed. ” The gr oup s he pr offe r s forherfutur e per s ecut i on claim i s “w om en w ho have es cape d i nvol u n t a rys e r vi tude af t erbei ng abduct ed and c onfi ned b yth e F A R C .” S h e e x p lain s th a t th is n a rro w e r so c ial g ro u p is “def i ned bya s hared pas texper i ence [of be i ng abduct ed and t hr eat ened, and that ] herm ember s hi p can be at t r ibu ted t o her esc ap ee ‘st atus

. ’” 617 W e w ill f irst e x a m in e P e tit io n e r’s p a st p e rse c u tio n c laim a n d a ss e ss w h e th e r an y o f th e in c id e n ts P e tit io n e r a lleg e s ris e to t he l evel of per s ecut i on. For t hos e i nci dent s t hat do r i s e t o t he leve l of p erse cu ti o n , w e w il l co n side r w h ethe r t h eyw ere m ot i vat ed byPet i t i oner ’ s s oci al gr oup ori m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. I f Pet i t i onerfai l s t o es t abl i s h p ast p er s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed g rou n d , w e w i l l t hen cons i dert he separat e qu est i on of w hetherP et i t i on er has est abli shed a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ounto f a pr ot ect ed gr ound.
1 . P AS T P E RS E CU T I ON
O n e w aya pet i t i onerm ayqual i fyforas y l um i s by sh o w in g p a st pe rse c u tio n , w h ich “ g iv e s rise to a r e b u ttab le pr es um pt i on of a w ell

- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. ” Li v. A t t ’ y G en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. T he I N A does notdefi ne “pe r s ecut i on. ” I d. a t 1 7 0 (“ C o n g r e s s c h o se n o t to defi ne ‘pe r s ecut i on’ i n t he R efuge e A ct , nor has anyl egi s l at i ve de f i n i t i o n b e e n e n a c t e d i n t h e i n t e r i m. ” )

. W e h a v e hel d t hat p e rse c u tio n , w h ile n o t in c lu siv e o f e v e r ya c t th a t o u r so c iety m ig h t re g a rd a s u n f

a ir, u n ju st, u n law f

u l, o r u n c o n stitu tio n a l, g en era ll yinclu d es treatm en t l ike d ea th threa ts, inv o lun tary confi nement , t or tur e, and others ever e af fr ont s t o the li fe or f re e d o m o f

th e a p p lic a n t. S e e L i n v
. I NS , 238 F. 3d 239, 244 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ).
P eti ti o n er c lai m s tha t al l th ree o f h er in v o lu n tary det ent i ons byt h e FA R C cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. T he gov ernmentar gues t hatnone of the FA R C ’ s t r eatm entof Pet i t i onerw as s o har m ful as t o r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on.I n Li w e n o ted th a t “ [ r]a th e r th a n c o n sid e r su c h th re a ts 7 pas t per s ecut i on . . . unful fi l l ed thr eat s ar e gene r al l yw i t hi n t hat ca tego ryo f c o n d u ct i n d icati v e o f a d an g er o f f u ture persecu t i on. ” 400 F. 3d at165 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks o m itte d ). T h is c h a ra c te ri z a tio n a p p lie s s im ila rl yh e re . See inf ra 18 W e di s agr ee w i t h bot h of th ese clai m s . A s w e w i l l expl ai n, w hi l e Pet i t i oner ’ s fi r s t t w o encount er s do notr i s e t o t he l evel of p e r s e c u t i o n , h e re i g h t

- d a ya b d u c t i o n a t t h e h a n d s o f t h e F ARC does r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. W h ile w e h a v e sta ted th a t th re a ts m a yc o n stitu te pe r s e c u t i o n , “ we h a v e l i mi t e d t h e t yp e s o f t h r e a t s c o n s t i t ut i ng per s ecut i on t o onl ya s m al l cat egoryof ca s es , and onl y w hen the t hr eat s ar e s o m enac i ng as t o caus e s i gni fi cant actual s uffe r i ng orhar m . ” C havar r i a v. G onz al ez , 4 4 6 F

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

. 200 6) ( ci t i ng Li , 400 F. 3d at164) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. B ot h C h a v a rr ia and Li ar e i ns t ruct i ve as t o w her e the l i ne s houl d be dr aw n.
I n Li , the p e tit io n e r , a C h in e se n a tio n a l, w a s re p e a ted ly th re a ten e d b ya u th o ritie s w it h p h ysic a l m istre a tm e n t, ster i l i zat i on, and det ent i on aft ert he bi r t h of hi s four t h chi l d. 4 0 0 F. 3 d a t1 6 5

- 7 0

. I n a d d i t i o n , h e was s u b j e c t e d t o a c tu al econ om i c hardshi p i n the form of depri vati on of cer t ai n b enef i t s. I d. W hi l e w e hel d t hatt he ac tual economi c har ds hi p cons t i tut ed p e rse c u tio n , the u n f

u lf ille d “ th re a ts o f

p h y sic a l m istre a tm e n t, det ent i on, or s t er i l i zat i on des cr i bed by L i do notappea rt o have been s ufficien tl yim m inen t or co n cre te fo r t h e thre ats themsel ves t o be cons i der ed pas tper s ecut i on. ” I d. 7ourdi s cus s i on of futur e per s ecut i on. 19 I n C h a v a r r ia , the p e tit io n e r, a G u a tem a lan n a tio n a l, w i t nes s ed t w o w om en bei ng at t acke d byg o v ernm ent par ami l i t ar i es and ca m e t o t hei r ai d. 446 F. 3d at513. A few day s l at er , C havarr i a s aw fami l i ar - l o oki ng m en conduc t i ng s ur vei ll ance of hi s hous e and s ubs equent l yl earned thatt he w om en he had hel ped had been human r i ght s w or ker s oppos ed to th e g o v e rn m e n t. I

d. L at er , aft erbr i efl ym ovi ng t o the U ni t ed St at es outof fea r for hi s s afe t y , he r etur ned t o G uat emal a and a s e c o n d in c id e n t o c c u rr e d

. I d. T h is tim e , arm e d m e n f o rc e d h im i n t o t h e b a c k s e a t o f h i s c a r , p u t a g u n t o h i s h e a d , r o b b e d h i m, a n d th r e a t e n e d t o k ill h im if th e ye v e r s a w h im a g a in

. I d. C havarr i a bel i eved thatthes e m en w er e af fi l i at ed w i t h t he par ami l i t ar i es , and fe ar i ng forhi s l i fe, agai n fl ed t o t he U ni t ed S ta te s . I d.
In a s s e s s i ng t he qu e s t i on of w he t he rt he a c t i on s a ga i ns t C havarr i a r os e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on, w e found thatt he ac t of s ur ve i l l a nc e a l on e di d n otc on s t i tut e pe r s e c ut i on be c a us e “eve n i f cons i der ed a thr eat , [i t] w as nothi ghl yi m m i nentnor m enac i ng enough t o r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. ” I d. at519. H ow ever , w e found thatt he expl i ci tdeath t hr eat d u ri n g t he se c o n d in c id e n t d id rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se “ it w as bot h hi ghl y im m ine nt , concr et e and menaci ng and C havarr i a s uffe r ed harm fr om i t

. ” I d. at 520. W e expl ai ned that “[t ] hi s threati s unl i ke the thr eat s w e enc ount er ed i n Li , w hi ch w ere m ere ly v erb al a n d n o t co n cre te be ca u se h ere , the a tt ac k ers actual l yr obbed C h av arr i a, poi nt ed a gun t o hi s fac e, and t hr eat ened hi m w i t h death i f he t ol d hi s s t or y . ” I d.20 A p p ly ing thes e stan d ard s to the p rese n t case , P eti ti o n er’s fi r s tt w o encount er s w i t h the F A R C d o notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. Fi r s tof al l , t he FA R C ’ s appar ents u rve i l l ance of Pet i t i onert o det er m i ne w hethers he w as d at i ng governm ent o ff icers, w h il e c ertainlythrea tenin g an d v iolati v e of P eti ti o n er’s pr i vacy , i s s i m i l art o t he s ur veil la nce i n C h a v a rr ia wh i c h we found di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. 446 F. 3d at519. M or e i m por t ant l y , w hi l e FA R C guer i l l as t w i ce rou n ded up Pet i t i oneratgunpoi ntal ong w i t h ot herw om en and w arned her n o t t o fra terni ze w i th g o v ern m en t of fice rs, thes e d eten ti o n s w ere br ief a nd Pet i t i onerw as notphy s i cal l yi nj ur ed orr obbed as C h a v a rr ia w a s . I

d. at 513. I n addi t i on, t he re cor d i ndi cat es t hat the g u eril las w ere arm ed , b u t i t do es n o t sug g est t h e g u n s w ere b ra n d ish e d o r u se d in th e sa m e th re a ten in g m a n n e r a s in C h a v a rr ia

. I

d. T he fi r s tt w o det ent i ons ar e cl os e t o t he l i ne, but on bal ance ar e more s i m i l art o the situat i on i n Li , w her e the t hr eat s w er e obl i que and noti m m i nent , an d t he pet i t i onerw as notappr eci abl yh arm ed

. Such br i ef de t ent i ons , w her e l i t t l e or no phy s i cal har m occur s , gener al lydo notr i s e t o t he l evel of p e rs e c u tio n . See J

ar bough v. A t t ’

y G en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng t hatt w o br i ef de t ent i ons of pet i t i onerbyt he Sy r i an governm ent , w hi l e “har as s i ng and i nt i m i dat i ng, ” di d not ri se to the lev el of

p erse cu ti o n ).
T hes e ea r l i eri n cide n ts do notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, butPet i t i oner ’ s ei g h t- d ay ab d uct i on and confi nement does

. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thatan arm ed man for ced h er to w alk f

o r t w o h o u rs, ey es co v ere d an d h an d s b o u n d , b ef o re chai ni ng hert o a bed i n an unfami l i ar hous e i n t he hi l l s . T her e, s he r emai ned bli ndfol ded, w hi l e a numberof arm ed men r e p e a t e d l yt h r e a t e n e d h e r , me n a c i n g l yi n f o r me d h e rt h a t“ t h ey21 h a d in ten tio n s” w ith h e r , a n d to ld h e r th a t th e yw a n ted h e r to “s t ayw i t h t hem. ” Th e m en eve n r emai ned w i t h herw hen s he per i odi cal l yw entout s i de t o t he bathr oom . T he FA R C guer i l l as con fi ned her und er these co nd i t i on s for ei gh tday s. W hi l e w e have expl ai ned that det ent i ons al one do not nece s s ar i l y cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, t hi s unl aw ful abduct i on r i s es t o t h e l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e d u r a t i o n of confi nem ent , t he depr i vat i on of Pet i t i oner ’ s fr eedom of m o v e me n t a n d s i g h t , t h e i n v a s i o n o f Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s p r i v a c y , t he i m pl i ci tand overt t hr eat s m ade agai ns therper s on, t he omi nous w arn ing s u p o n h er relea s e th at t h e F A R C w o u ld b e “ v ery a tten tiv e ” to h e r, an d th a t sh e w a s o b lig e d to re tu rn to se rv e th e ir c a u s e u p o n c o m p le tio n o f h e r s tu d ie s . See , e. g. , Lukw ago , 329 F .3 d a t 1 6 9 (“ E v e n if f o rc e d c o n sc rip tio n b ya g u e rrilla or gani zat i on al one w oul d notqu ali fy a vi ct i m foras y l um t hat does not m ean t hat , i n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , i tcannot c o n s titu te p e rse c u tio n .”); Yu , 5 1 3 F. 3 d a t3 4 8 ( h o l d i n g t h at co n fin em en t can co n sti tute p erse cu ti o n ).
M o reo v er, “w e d o n o t con side r th e [ fin al i n cide n t] in vacuo ; w e w e ig h it in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e p ri o r i n c id e n ts .” Toure v. A t t ’

y G en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 318 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( fi ndi ng t hatpet i t i oner’ s fl i ghtaft er“har as s m entcont i nued and e sc a late d ” re in f

o rc e d th e c laim ). W e ig h in g th is f in a l in c id e n t in the c o n text o f th e p ri o r i n cide n ts sho w s tha t Pe ti ti o n er’s al l egat i ons r egar di ng t he i m m i nence and m enac i ng natur e of the t hr eat s are j us t i fi ed. T he over al l t r aj ect or yof t he har as s m ent a g a in st he r “c o n tin u e d a n d e sc a late d ” w ith e a c h n e w in c id e n t, fr om w hi ch w e can inf erbot h t he i m m i nence and the concr et enes s of t h e t hr eatatt he t i m e of the ei ght

- day22 confi nement

. T her efor e, i t i s cl ear t hatt hi s fi nal i nci dentr i s es t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on.
H ow ever , as w e poi nt ed ou ti n Lukw ago , a demonstr at i on of pas tper s ecut i on al one i s not s uffi ci ent t o qual i fyan appl i cant foras y l um . 329 F. 3d at 1 7 0. W e mustal s o “l ook bey ond t he a p p l i c a n t ’ s c o n d u c t t o t h e p e r s e c u t o r ’ s mot i v e s . ” I d. A s t he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed, t he I N A “makes m ot i ve cr i t i cal ” and an asy lum ap p li ca n t m u st p rov ide “so m e ev iden ce o f [ m o ti v e], di r ectorci r cumst ant i al

. ” I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U

. S. 478, 4 8 3 (19 9 2 ).
B ot h t he B I A and I J hel d t hatPet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on fai l ed as a m at t erof l aw beca us e s he di d nots how herpol i t i cal opi ni on orherpar t i cul ars oci al gr oup cons t i tut ed “a tl eas tone centr al r eas on” for her per s ecut i on by t he FA R C

. T he I J s t at ed t hat
“as a mat t erof l aw , her cl ai m foras y l um , and her c laim f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to Sect ion 2 41( b) ( 3) fai l beca us e s he ca nnotpr ove t hats he w as per s ecut ed bec aus e of he rpol i t i cal o p in io n o r b e c a u se o f

h e r alleg e d m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p .”
Fi r s t , t he I J found that w om en w ho dat e mi l i t aryorpol i ce offi cer s do not cons t i tut e a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup. T he I J not ed that this w as no t a reco g n ized ca tego ryu n d er Es cobar , 417 F. 3dA ccor di ng t o ours ur veyi n Es cobar , 8
“C our t s have e xcl ud ed fr om t he cl as s i fi cat i on: y oung, urban El Sal vador an m al es of m i l i t aryage w h o h a d n o t s e rv e d in th e m i l i t a r y, Sa n c h ez - T

r u j i l l o v
. I NS , 8 0 1 F

. 2 d 1 5 7 1 (9th C ir

. 19 86 ); y ou th s w i t h g ang i den t i fi cat i on t at t oo s, Ca s t e l l a n o - Ch a c o n v
. I

NS , 3 4 1 F

. 3 d 5 3 3 (6th C ir

. 200 3 ) ; v o l u n t a r y me mbe r s i n a t a x i cab coo perat i ve thatrefused to y i el d to guerri l l as, Ma ttero f A c o sta , 19 I

. & N

. D ec. 211 ( 1985) ; and a d u lt w o m e n ra p e d a n d b ru taliz e d a s c h ild re n in E l S a lv a d o r, Go me z v
. I NS , 947 F. 2d 660 ( 2nd C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ).
C our t s have r ecogni zed the fol l ow i ng so cial gr o u p s : a fa m i l yt ar get ed forhar as s m entand v io len c e b e c a u se th e yw e re re late d to a n a lleg e d ly ra c is t b o s s in S o u th A f

ri c a , Thom as v. G onz al es , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); c h ild r e n w ith “di s abi l i t i es t hatar e s er i ous and l ong- l as t i ng or per m anenti n natur e and pa rent s w ho car e for t hem, ” Tchoukhr ova v. G onz al es , 404 F. 3d 1181, 2005 W L 913449 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) ; Som al i w om en u n d e r t h re a t o f

g e n ita l m u tila tio n , Moham m ed v. G onz al es , 400 F. 3d 785 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) ; a fa m i l i al s u b -c la n in S o m a lia , I

n r e H

- , Appl i cant , 2 1 I. & N

. D ec. 337 ( B I A 1996) ; and for m erm ember s of

23 at 3 6 7 , and s t at ed t hatbeca us e the gr oup i s notbas ed on an

8E l Sa lvad o r' s n ati o n al po lic e , M at t erof Fuent es , 1 9 I. & N . D e c . 6 5 8 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ).”
Es cobar , 417 F. 3d at367. It is d if f icu lt to se e h o w th is f

irst d istin c tio n is re lev a n t, 9 an d the IJ d o es n o t exp lai n itfu rt h er. 24 i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i c, i t cannot qual i fy as a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. T he I J opi ned that“w om en, ” l i ke “y out h, ” w as t oo l ar ge and di ver s e a gr oup t o cons t i tut e the bas i s of a pa r t i cul ars oci al g ro u p . See Lukwago , 329 F. 3d at172. T he I J al s o r el i ed on the l ogi c t hatbeca us e t he B I A had pr evi ous l yhel d t hatpol i ce offi cer s ar e not a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup, w om en w ho dat e them c a n n o t b e . S e e Ma t t e r o f F uent es , 1 9 I. & N

. D ec . 6 5 8 (B IA 1988)

. T he I J concl uded that“one w h o d ates” cannotbe an i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i c.
T he I J al s o found t hatPet i t i onerw as n otper s ecut ed beca us e of he rpol i t i cal opi ni on oran i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. She r eas oned thatt he FA R C had s i m pl ys t at ed that t heyw i s hed P eti ti o n er to w o rk f

o r t h em , g iving n o insigh t into th e F A R C ’s m ot i vat i ons . T he I J t ook i s s ue w i t h Pet i t i oner ’ s r el i ance on C h a v a rr ia , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g i tf i r s to n t h e b a s i s t h a tt he per s ecut or s i n C h a v a rr ia w er e governm ent aff i l i at es , w hi l e the persecut ors her e are opp osed to t he g ov ernm e n t. T he IJ al so 9 pos i t ed that her e, unl i ke C h a v a rr ia , “the mosts ever e ac tof per s ecut i on had not hi ng t o do w i t h r es pondent ’ s dat i ng of pol i ce and mi l i t aryoffi cer s . ” T he I J s t at ed thatPet i t i oner ’ s ei ght

- day confi nement , dur i ng w hi ch h e rcapt or s eventual l yexpl ai ned that25 t heyw ant ed her t o “s t ay w i t h t hem” w as guer i l l a r ecrui t m ent , as di s t i nctfr om har as s m entfordat i ng governm entoffi ce rs; and guer i l la re crui t m ent , w i t houtm or e, i s gener al l ynota bas i s for f in d in g im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . See , e. g. , E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U .S . at 4 8 1 (h o ld in g th a t a g u e rrilla o rg a n iza tio n ’s a tt e m p t to c o n sc ri p t a p e rso n in to its m ili tar yf o rc e s d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily co n sti tute p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of p o li ti ca l op inion ). T h e B IA agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and adde d t hat
“the appl i canthas no ts uffi ci ent l ys how n t hat guer i l l a for ces i m put ed a hos t i l e pol i t i cal opi ni on t o her or t ar get ed her for harm on acc ount of her m em b ersh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p . R athe r, as t he appl i cant i ndi cat ed, s he w as t hr eat ened by guer i l l as for m aki ng w hatt heyper cei ved as bei ng di s r es pect ful rel at i ons hi p choi ces and i n an a ttem p t to r e c ru it th e a p p lica n t f o r h e r h e a lth re la te d b a c k g ro u n d .”
Pet i t i o n er has pr es ent ed s uffi ci entr ecor d evi dence t hat t h e e a r l i e ri n c i d e n t s i n wh i c h s h e wa s d e t a i n e d by t he F ARC w er e m ot i vat ed by t he FA R C ’ s des i r e t o di s s uade herand other y o u n g w o m e n f

ro m d a tin g , a n d th u s a f

f ili a tin g th e m se lv e s w ith gover nm ent offi cer s . H ow ever , as w e hel d t hatthes e e ar l i er i nci d e n t s d o n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n , t h e y do not pr ovi de a ba s i s fores t abl i s hi ng r efuge e s t atus , r egar dl es s of t he mo t i v a t i o n b e h i n d t h e m.
B eca us e Pet i t i o n er’s eigh t- d ayabduct i on and con fin em entdoes r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on, w e may cons i derw hetherP eti t i onerhas s how n t hatt he FA R C w asIti s not necessaryt o d et erm i ne w heth e r th i s i s a 10 cog nizabl e “part i cularsoci al group ” un der t he st atute, becau se t her e i s s u b stan t i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o concl ude thatt he FA R C w as notm ot i vat ed byPet i t i oner ’ s m emb ersh ip i n a part i cularsoci al g rou p w hen t heyabd ucted her for ei gh tday s, b u t w as in stead m o ti v ated b ya d esire to rec ruith er. 26 m o tiv a ted b ya p ro tec ted g ro u n d w h e n it p e rp e tra ted th is in c id e n t. W e a g re e w ith th e IJ a n d th e B IA th a t th e re is s ubs t ant i al evi dence on t he re cor d t hat t hi s fi nal i nci dentw as not centr al l ym ot i vat ed byanyi m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on ors oci al group st atus based on P et i t i on e r ’ s da t i ng of g ov ernm ent offi cers , b u tr a t h e rb ya d e s i r e t o r e c ru i tP e t i t i o n e r . Du r i n g t h e f i r s tt wo i nci dent s , t he FA R C cl ear l yexpr es s ed t o t he w om en thati tw as round i ng t hem up t o w arn them no t t o date gov ernm ent offi cers . B ut d u r i n g t h e e i g h t

- d a ya b d u c t i o n , Pe t i t i o n e ra s k e d t he g u eril las i f sh e w as b eing p u n ishe d fo r da ti n g a m il it aryo ff icer, an d they told he r “tha t w asn ’t it

. ” M o reo v er, Pe ti ti o n er “ h ad n ’t been goi ng outw i t h any one, ” unl i ke pr i ort o t he pr evi ous i ncident s. W hi l e the Pet i t i oner ’ s t r eatm ent a t the hands of t he guer r i l l as i s no doubtab h o r r entand r epugnantt o our sensi bil i t i es, P et i t i on er has not est abli shed t hat t h is pa st tre a tm e n t o c c u rre d b e c a u se th e g u e rillas b e liev e d th a t sh e h e ld a part i cul arpol i t i cal opi ni on orbeca us e s he w as a w om an w ho dat ed governm entoffi cer s . H er e, the evi dence s ugges t s t hat 10 th e F A R C w a s s im p ly m o tiv a te d b ya d e s ir e to “ f ill th e irra n k s ,” w h ic h is n o t a p ro te c te d g ro u n d u n d e r t h e s ta tu te

. E l i asZacar i as , 502 U

. S. at482.B eca us e Pet i t i onerconvi nced the FA R C t o r el eas e her 11 bas ed on a pr om i s e t o r etur n and j o in them t hats he neve r in ten d e d to k e e p , w e b e liev e h e r ac tio n s h e re a re tan tam o u n t to an es cape fr om for ced c ons cr i pt i on. T h u s, t he ci r cumst ance s h e re a re f

u n c tio n a ll y e q u iv a len t to th e c irc u m sta n c e s in

27 2 . W EL L- F OUNDE D F EA R OF F UT UR E P E RS E CU T I ON
W hi l e Pet i t i onerhas fai led to s how pas tper s ecut i on m oti v at ed bya pr ot ect ed gr ound, t hati s nott he end of t he analy si s. A show i ng of p astpersecut i on m erel yt ri gg ers a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on t hatPet i t i onerhas a w ell

- founded f ear o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . Lukw ago , 3 2 9 F

. 3 d at174 ( ci t i ng 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13( b) ( 1) )

. W hi l e thi s pr es um pt i on i s oft en d eterm inative o f a p eti ti o n er’s asy lum claim , it is no t nec essa ry for a peti t i on er t o sho w pastpersecut i on i f she can n on et heles s s how a w el l

- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on w i t houtt he b e n e f it o f s u c h a p re s u m p tio n . I

d. Such ar e the ci r cumst ance s of the case befo re us.
P et i t i on er i s no t rel i eved of her bu rden of show i ng , as a th re sh o ld m a tter, th a t h e r ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m bersh ip i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on w i l l be one of th e c e n tr a l r e a s o n s m o tiv a tin g h e r p e rs e c u to rs to ta rg e t h e r. I d. For purpos es o f h erfutur e per s ecut i on cl ai m , Pet i t i onerhas pr offe r ed a di ffe r ent “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” fr om t he one o f f e re d in su p p o rt o f h e r p a st p e rse c u tio n c laim . T h a t g ro u p is “w om en w ho have e s cape d i nvol unt arys er vi tude af t erbei ng a b d u c ted a n d c o n f

in e d b y th e F A R C .” B e c a u se th is g ro u p is 11Lu kwago , 3 2 9 F. 3d at164 ( L ukw ago w as abl e t o es cape fr om fo rce d co n scripti o n “w h il e c o ll ec ti n g firew o o d ”). 28 b a se d in p a rt o n e v e n ts th a t h a p p e n e d in th e p a st, it i s e f f e c tiv e ly a “s t atus orcondi t i on” thati s s uffi ci ent l yi m m ut abl e t o be c o n s id e re d a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . See Esc obar , 417 F. 3d at 3 6 7 (h o ld in g th a t g e n e ra lly , “th o se w h o p o ss e ss im m u tab le char act er i s t i cs s uch as r ace , genderora pr i orpos i t i on, s t atus or condi t i on” ca n b e co ns i der ed mem ber s of a pa r t i cul ars oci al g ro u p ); see als o M

att er of A c o sta , 19 I

. & N

. D ec. 211, 333 ( B I A 1985) ( “The sha r ed cha r act er i s t i c . . . m i ghtbe a s har ed pas texper i ence s uch as for m erm i l i t aryl eade r sh i p orl and o w n ersh ip.”).
M o re o v e r, th is g ro u p is n a rro w a n d d istin c tiv e , an d w h ile cl ear l yr el at ed t o t he FA R C ’s p ast m i s t r eatm entof num er ous i ndi vi dual s , i texi s t s i ndep endent l yof t he per s ecut i on t hat Pet i t i onerfea r s t hat s he w i l l s uffe r i n t he fut ur e as a m ember of t hi s par t i cul ars oci al gr oup. A s w e expl ai ned i n Lukw ago , “W e agr ee t hat under t he s t atut e a ‘p art i cul ar s oci al gr oup’ m us texi st i ndepende nt l yof t he p e r s e c u t i o n s u f

f e r e d b yt h e a p p l i c a n tf

o ra s y l u m. A l t ho ug h the shared exp eri ence o f enduri ng past persecut i on m ay , un der som e ci rc um st ances, s up p o rtdefi ni ng a ‘ par t i cul ars oci al gr oup’ for purpos es of fearof futur e per s ecut i on, i tdoes not s uppor tdefi ni ng a ‘p art i cul ars oci al gr oup’ for pastpersecut i on b e cause t he p ers ecuti on m ust have be en ‘on acc ountof” a pr ot ect ed gr ound.29 I N A § 101( a) ( 42) ( A ). T her efor e, t he ‘ par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup’ m us thave e xi s t ed bef or e the p e rs e c u tio n b e g a n .”
329 F. 3d at172. I ti s pr eci s el yPet i t i oner ’s es cape e s t atus t hat is lik e ly to m o tiv a te th e F A R C to se e k h e r a n d p e rse c u te h e r in t he fut ur e. U nl i ke i n t he pas tper s ecut i on cont ext , heres cape e s t atus has al r eadyat t ache d, and a f or t i or i w il l ha ve exi s t ed befo re anyfutur e persecut i on occu rs . T his scenari o p aral l el s Lukw ago . I n t h a tc a s e , we ac ce p ted, fo r p u rpo ses o f sh o w ing a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, L ukw ago’ s pr offer ed “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup”: “chi l dr en fr om N or t hern U ganda w ho have e s cape d fr om i nvol unt arys er vi tude af t erbei ng abduct ed and ens l aved byt he L R A [Lord’ s R es i s t ance A rm y , a gr oup of ant i

- governm ent guer i l l as ]

. ” I

d. at174-75

. T her e i s no r el evantdi s t i nct i on betw een thi s gr oup and the s oci al gr oup t hatPet i t i onerhas pr offe r ed her e. B o th g roups enc om pas s for m ercapt i ves of g u eril la gro u p s w h o esc ap ed fro m that ca p ti v ityan d are t her efor e s t i gm at i zed by t he exper i ence . B as ed on the degr ee of s i m i l ar i tyb e twee n Lu k wag o ’ s a n d Pe t i t i oner ’ s s i tuat i ons , w e s ee no r eas on w hym ember s hi p i n the gr oup, “w om en w ho have es cape d i nvol unt arys er vi tude a f t e rb e i ng abduct ed and c onfi ned byt he FA R C , ” ca nnotfor m t he bas i s fores t abl i s hi ng r ef u g ee s t a tu s i n a f

u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n c l a i m.
I n or der t o s how t hat a fear i s “w el l

- founded” undert he a sy lum st atute, P et i t i on er m ustshow t hat herfear i s b o th s u b je c tiv e a n d o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le , A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 495- 96 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w hi ch s he maydo byus i ng30 te s tim o n i a l , d o c u m e n ta ry, o r e x p e rt e v id e n c e , Lukw ago , 329 F .3 d a t 1 7 7

. W h e re d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t, cr edi b l e a n d p e r s u a s i v e t e s t i mon yf r o m t h e p e t i t i o n e rma ybe s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h b o th o b je c tiv e a n d s u b

je c tiv e f e a r. I d. “To s at i s fy t he obj ect i ve pr ong, a pet i t i oner m us t s how he ors he w o u ld be indi viduallysin g led o u t f o r p e rse c u tio n o r d e m o n stra te t hatt her e i s a patt ern orpr acti ce i n hi s orhercountr yof n a tio n a li ty . . . o f

p e rse c u tio n o f

a g ro u p o f

p e rso n s s im ilarly s itu a te d to th e a p p lic a n t o n a c c o u n t o f ” a p ro te c te d g ro u n d

. See Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A “patt ern orpr act i ce” o f per s ecut i on m us tbe “s y s t emat i c, per vas i ve, oror gani zed. ” I d. ( quot i ng L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ).
W e fi r s texami ne the I J ’ s and t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons t hat Pet i t i onerhad not es t abl i s hed thats he had a w el l

- founded f ear o f fu ture p erse cu ti o n . In it s b ri ef tw o -sen tenc e a n aly sis, the IJ det er m i ned t hat des pi t e t he t hr eat s agai ns t her , Pet i t i onerdi d not es t abl i s h a w el l

- founded fea r beca us e t he thr eat s ar e “notbas ed o n her i m m ut abl e char act er i s t i cs . ” T he B I A aff i r m ed t h e IJ’s anal y s is in a si ngl e s ent ence , fi ndi ng t hat“the r ecor d does not s uppor tt he appl i cant ’ s cl ai m of havi ng a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on o n acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. ” W hi l e nei t her t he I J no r t he B IA has pr ov i ded us a detai l ed anal y sis o n th is p o int, w e c o n stru e the se d ec isi o n s to rejec t bo th P eti ti o n er’s p ro f f e re d so c ial g ro u p a n d h e r c laim th a t h e r f e a r w a s w e llfounded. S u ch truncat ed r evi ew of Pet i t i oner ’ s w el l

- founded f e a rc a n n o tb e t h e b a s i s f o rr e j e c t i n g h e rc l a i m, wh i c h , a s we w i l l expl ai n, i s s uppor t ed bybot h t he l aw and the r ecor d.31 Ap p l y i n g t h e a b o v e f

r a me wo r k t o P e t i t i o n e r ’ s c a s e , we fi r s thol d t hatPet i t i onerhas es t abl i s hed a s ubject i ve fe arof futur e persecut i on t hroug h h er t est i m on ybefo re the IJ: Q

. A n d w h a t d o y o u th in k w o u ld h a p p e n to y o u if y o u – w h a t d id y o u th in k w o u ld h a p p e n t o y o u i f y o u d i d n ’ t j o i n t h e F ARC as y ou w ant ed af

t ery ou gr aduat ed?
A

. T h a t th e yw e re g o in g to k ill m e , tha t is to sayw hat hap pen ed to m ycou si n m ost l i kel yw oul d happen t o m e, al s o. Pet i t i oner ’ s cous i n had pr evi ous l ybeen f or ced t o join t he F ARC, a n d a f

t e rh e wa s a b l e t o e s c a p e , t h e F ARC ki l l e d h i m. S he lat er r ei t erat ed h er ow n p ers on al fears: Q

. A n d w h a t d o y o u th in k th e F A R C w o u ld d o if y o u w e re f

o rc e d to re tu rn to C ol om bi a?
A

. W el l , t he mostl i kel yt hi ng w oul d be that t heyw oul d ki l l m e. T he s ame t hi ng happene d t o m ycous i n. H e es cape d fr om t hem, and theyki l l ed hi m , and here I es cape d fr om t hem, al s o.
T h ese stat em en ts, w h ich th e IJ h erse lf fo u n d to b e c red ible, are s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatPet i t i oners ubj ect i vel yfea r ed p e rs e c u tio n . Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at177.32 Pet i t i oner’s spe ci fi c fe ari s al s o obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. Fi r s t , Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thatt he FA R C had har m ed or t hr eat ened mem b ers of herfami l y : herbr ot her

- i n- l aw w as abduct ed, her s i s t er ’ s hous e w as bom bed, her uncl e w as s hot t hr ee t i m es , hercous i n w as ki l l ed as puni s hm entfores cape , and short l yaft er Pet i t i on er l eft , her fat her di sappea red. A l l of these i nci dent s s how t hat t he FA R C i s bot h w i l l i ng and abl e t o exac t re trib u tio n o n th o se in d iv id u a ls w h o d e f yit an d m a k e s it a pr act i ce t o do s o. T hatt hes e i nci dent s i nvolve m ember s of Pet i t i o n er’s ow n fami l yonl yr ei nfor ces t he i m m i nence and p r o x i m i t y o f

t h e t h r e a tt o P e t i t i o n e rs p e c i f i c a l l y. Second, Pet i t i onerhas cons i s t ent l yr ece i ved thr eat eni ng p h o n e c a l l s a n d me s s a g e s s i n c e h e ra b d u c t i on . Th e F ARC cont act ed herbetw een one and thr ee t i m es a mont h and t ol d her that they w ere w a tc h ing h er a n d k n ew ev ery thing ab o u t her. T hey r emi nded herof her“comm i t m ent ” t o t hem and t hatt hey had bee n abl e t o w at ch herand fi nd her e veryw her e s he had l i ved: L a B r et ana, L a G r anj a, M edel l i n, and San Fr anci s co. E ven af t ers he fl ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es , t he FA R C cont act ed her bycel l phone, w hi ch hers i s t er , w ho had bee n keepi ng t he phone for her , ans w er ed. T he F A R C r epr es ent at i ve omi nous l yt ol d her t hatPe ti t i oner“s houl d appea r , t hati tw oul d be bett eri f [s he] a p p e a re d .” T h is te stim o n yre in f o rc e s n o t o n lyth a t itis r eas onabl e t o bel i eve thatt he FA R C w i l l cont i nue t o t r ack a nd m o n ito r P e tit io n e r, b u t th a t th e F A R C ’ s th re a ts a re c re d ib le in t he s ens e t hat t hey have cons i s t ent l y s how n a capa bi l i t y and an inclination to loc ate a n d p u n ish P eti ti o n er. Fina l l y , t he art i cl es and r eport s s ubm i t t ed byPet i t i oner c o rro b o ra te th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h e r f e a rs . T h e 2 0 0 4 S tate33 D epart m ent R epor t on C ol om bi a s ay s t hat FA R C does i n fa ct p rac ti ce f

o rc e d co n scripti o n an d that the F A R C co m m an d ers oft en thr eat ened t o ki l l des er t er s and t hei r fami l i es . I n addi t i on, t he St at e D epart m ent R epor t s t at es t hat t he FA R C guer i l l as have been know n t o t hr eat en, beat , r ape, and s exual l y abus e w om en f o r f ra ter n izin g w ith g o v e rn m e n t an d p o lice o f f ice rs. W h ile in t hi s futu re per s ecut i on cont extPet i t i oneri s as s er t i ng t hather per s ecut i on w i l l be mot i vat ed by her es cape e st atus and notfor anypr evi ous fr at erni zat i on, t hes e r epor t s s t i l l s er ve t o bol s t er Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m t hat t he FA R C i s gener al l yi ncl i ned t o fol l ow t hr ough on ven d ett as and met e outpuni s hm entforper cei ved tra n sg re ss io n s o f

a ll so rts, a n d th a t su c h p ra c tice s a re sy ste m ic and pervas i ve.
T h e f in a l q u e stio n is w h e th e r th is f u tu r e p e rse c u tio n is li k elyto o cc u r on ac co u n t of a p ro te c te d g rou n d

. T h e IJ det er m i ned t hatPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m w as no t b ased on her “i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i cs , ” b utw e di s agr ee. For t he r eas ons ex p lai ned supra , w e a cc ep t th at fo r pu rpo ses o f f u ture per s ecut i on, Pet i t i oneri s a m ember of t he gr oup, “w om en w ho have e s cape d i nvol unt arys er vi tude af t erbei ng ab d u ct ed and confi ned byt he FA R C , ” and that this is a “ par t i cul ars oci al gr oup” undert he I N A

. T hus , contr aryt o t he I J ’ s fin d ing, t he a c t i o n t h a tP e t i t i o n e rr e a s o n a b l y f e a r s , r e p r i s a l f

r o m t h e F ARC f o r h a v i n g e s c a p e d , i s i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d t o h e r s t a tu s as an e s c a p e e . He re s c a p e e s t a tu s i s i mm u t a b l e , a n d t h e r e c o r d s h o ws t ha t th e F A R C i s w i l l i ng t o carr you tsuch ret ri bu t i on against d e se rte rs a n d e sc a p e e s g e n e ra lly , in c lu d in g th e sp e c if ic e x a m p le of Pet i t i oner ’ s ow n cous i n. Pet i t i oner h as t hus s how n t hats he has a w el l

- founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on t he gr ound t hat s he bel ongs t o t he “parti cul ars oci al gr oup” of “ w om en w hoW e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d t h a t “ [ a ] s i s o f t e n t h e cas e, 12 [ th e p e tit io n e r’s ] p o lit ica l o p in io n a rg u m e n t is e n tw in e d w ith h is s oci al g rou p cl ai m . ” Lukw ago , 3 2 9 F

. 3 d a t1 8 1

. Be c a u s e we hol d t hatPet it i onerhas es t abl i s hed a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on bas ed on herpar t i cul ars oci al gr oup, i ti s not n e c e s s a r yt o a n a l y z e t h e i mp u t e d p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n c l a i m. 34 have e s cape d i nvol unt ary serv i tude af t erbei ng abduct ed and c o n f in e d b yth e F A R C .”
T h e o b je c tiv e e x p e rie n c e s o f P e tit io n e r’s f

a m ily m em b ers, th e thre ats sh e h erse lf h as re c e iv e d , an d the c o u n try r epor t s d et ai l i ng t he FA R C ’ s t endenc yt o t ake r evenge for per cei ved w r ongs agai ns t i t , combi ne t o s at i s fyt he r equi r ement t hatherfea rof per s ecut i on be obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. T hus , t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat Pet i t i oner di d not have a w el l

- founded fea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof herpar t i cul ars oci al gr oup w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. 12
H ow ever , t he r egul at i ons s t at e that“ a n a p pl i cantdoes not h a v e a w e ll-f

o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n if

th e a p p lica n t co u ld av o id p erse cu ti o n b yreloc ati n g to an o ther p art of the a p p li ca n t’ s c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity , . . . if u n d e r a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s it w o u ld b e r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c tt h e a p p l i c a n tt o d o s o . ” 8 C. F

. R. § 208. 13( b) ( 1)

. W hi l e Pet i t i onerpr es ent ed s om e evi dence t hat t he FA R C ’ s i nfl uence w as per vas i ve i n C ol om bi a, and thats he had alr eadyr el ocat ed a numberof t i m es and had s t i l l been c o n s i s t e n t l yt h r e a t e n e d , t h e BI A d i d n o tr e a c h t h i s i s s u e b e l o w. T her efor e, on r emand, t he B I A sh o u ld cons i dert he i s s ue of re lo c a tio n . Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at181.35 B. W I THHOLD I NG OF RE M OVAL
T he s t andar d for a cl ai m of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval under I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) i s h i g h e r t ha n th e s t a n d a r d f o ra s y l u m. Ba l a s u b r a ma n r i m v
. I

NS , 1 4 3 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )

. As w i t h as y l um , Pet i t i on er m u st s how t hatanyper s ecut i on i s on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, butin ad d i t i on, s he musts how that su ch p erse cu ti o n is “m o re li k e ly th an n o t” t o o cc u r. Lukw ago , 329 F. 3d at182. T hus , an appl i cantw ho cannotm eet t he s t a n d a r d f

o r a s y l u m wi l l n e c e s s a r i l y b e u n a b l e t o me et t he s ta n d a rd f

o r w i t h h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. I

d. B eca us e w e have det er m i ned t hatt her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he concl usion t hatPet i t i onerhas nots how n pas tper s ecut i on, s he c a n n o t m e e t th e sta n d a rd f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l o n th is c l a i m.
B ut w e hav e deter m i ned t hat Pet i t i on er has a w el lfounded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on on t he bas i s of hers t atus as a f o rm er F A R C p ri so n e r w h o esc ap ed

. B ec au se th e B IA rejected h er w ith h o lding o f rem o v al claim w ith resp ec t t o fu ture per s ecut i on w hen i t r ej ect ed her as y l um cl ai m , upon r emand, t he B I A s houl d gi ve ful l cons i der at i on t o Pet i t i oner ’ s w i t hhol di ng o f re m o v a l c laim w ith re sp e c t to f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , tak in g in to a c c o u n t th e f

a c t th a t th e th r e a ts s h e h a s re c e iv e d a re d ire c tly r el at ed t o her m ember s hi p i n a s oci al gr oup, “w om en w ho have es cape d i nvol unt arys er vi tude a f t e rb e i n g abduct ed and c onfi ned b yth e F A R C .”36 C. P ROTE CT I ON UNDE R T HE CA T Peti ti o ner ’ s fi nal cl ai m i s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval un de r t he CA T. I n or de r t o s uc c e e d on t hi s c l a i m, s he m ust sh o w th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w ill b e to rtu re d if r emoved t o C ol om bi a, and t hat s uch t or tur e w i l l occur w i t h t he c o n s e n t o r a c q u ie s c e n c e o f t h e g o v e rn m e n t. Fa d iga v. A tt ’y G en. , 4 8 8 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 6 0 n .4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 )

. T h e “ m o re lik e ly t h a n n o t ” s t a n d a r d i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e “ c l e a r p r o b a b i l i t y” s t andar d us ed for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , “and both s t andar ds ar e equi val ent t o a ‘ pr eponder ance of t he evi dence

. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng IN

S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 4 0 7 , 4 2 4 & n . 1 9 (19 8 4 )). U nl i ke herot hert w o cl ai m s , Pet i t i onerneed nots how t hats he i s a “r efuge e” t o s us t ai n herC A T cl ai m ort hatanyt or tur e w as o n a c c o u n t o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d

. Si l va- R engi f o v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 7 3 F

. 3 d 5 8 , 6 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e reg u lat ion s d ef ine to rtu re as “any act by w hi ch s ever e pai n or suf fer i ng, w h e th e r p h y sic a l o r m e n tal, is in ten tio n a lly i nfl i ct ed on a pe r s on forsu ch p urpos es as obt ai ni ng fr om hi m orheror a thi r d per s on i nfor m at i on or a conf

es s i on, puni s hi ng hi m orher foran ac the ors he ora thi r d p erso n has comm i t t ed ori s s us pect ed of ha vi ng comm i t t ed, o r i n ti m idating o r co er c in g h im o r he r or a thir d per s on, or for anyr eas on bas ed on di s cr i m i nat i on o f a n yk in d , w h e n su c h p a in o r su f f e rin g is i nfl i ct ed byor a t the i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al or o th e r p e rs o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity.”37 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0 8

. 1 8 (a)(1).
H er e, t he I J deni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s C A T cl ai m beca us e s he fai l ed t o s how t hats he w oul d be “per s onal l yatr i s k of t or tur e att he hands o f t he gover nm ent

. T o m eetherbur den of pr oof, an appl i cantm us t

. . . es t abl i s h t hats om eone f r om t h e g o v e r n me n ta n d s o me o n e i n h e rp a r t i c u l ar a lleg e d c irc u m sta n c e s is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t to be t or tur ed i n t he countr y des i gnat ed forr emoval byt he governm ent

. [Pet i t i oner ] her e has m ade no s u c h s h o w in g .”
T h e IJ n e v e r re a c h e d th e q u e stio n w h e th e r it w a s m o re lik e ly th an n ot that Pet i t i on er w ou l d b e t ortured i f rem ov ed to C ol om bi a. R ather , t he deci s i on appar ent l yr es t ed on the fa ctt hat Pet i t i onerhad not s how n t hat any pot ent i al t or tur e w oul d occur

“ a t th e h a n d s o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t.”
T hi s “att he hands of t he governm ent ” l anguage does not a c k n o w le d g e th a t, un d e r th e re g u latio n s, P e tit io n e r n e e d o n ly s how t hat anyt or tur e w i l l occur“att he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e” of t he governm ent , and nee d notbe di r ect l ycarr i ed outby t he governm ent ’ s “hands

. ” See 8 C. F

. R. § 208. 18( a) ( 1)

. For s uppor t , t he I J r el i ed upon M a t t e ro f S

- V- , a ca s e w h ich i t s el f ac know l edges t hata C A T cl ai m antm ay es t abl i s h a cl ai m bas ed notonl yon t or tur e att he i ns t i gat i on of t he g o v e r n me n t , b u t a l s o o n c o n s e n t o r a c q u i e s c e n c e o f t he g o v ern m en t. 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . at 1 3 1 1 (“[ R ]eg u lat ion s d o req u ir e t hatt he harm be i nfl i ct ed by or at t he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he38 cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orot herper s on ac ti n g in an o ff

ici al ca p ac ity . ”). E v en assu m in g that the IJ’s r el i ance on t hi s cas e i ndi cat es t hats he consi der ed w hether evi dence i n t he r ecor d s uppor t ed the r i s k of t or tur e w i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of the governm ent , w e al t ere d t he s t andar d foracqu iesce n ce i n S ilva -R e n g ifo

. 473 F. 3d at70 ( “W e ar e per s uaded both by the fore goi ng hi s t or yof t he C onvent i on’ s i m pl ement i ng l egi s l at i on, and t he s ound l ogi c of ours i s t erci r cui tcour t s of appe al s , t hatt he def i ni t i on of “ac qui es cenc e” a dopt ed i n M a t t e ro f S

- V- w as t he w r ong l egal stan d ard to ap p ly

. ”).
I n S ilva -R e n g ifo , w e hel d t hatgovernm entacqui es cenc e no l ongerr equi r ed ac tual know l edge of t or tur ous conduct

. 473 F. 3d at65. W e fur t hers t at ed:
“The C A T does notr equi r e an al i en t o pr ove that t he governm ent i n ques t i on appr oves of t or tur e, or that itco n sen ts t o it

. R athe r, as th e c o u rt concl uded i n Zh e n gv . A sh c ro ft , 332 F

. 3 d 1186, 1194 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) , an al i en ca n s at i s fyt he bur den es t abl i s hed for C A T r el i ef bypr oduci ng su f f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t in q u e s tio n is w illf

u lly b lin d to s u c h a c tiv itie s .”
I d.
S ilva -R e n g ifo w as d eci ded af t ert he I J ’ s deci s i on, but p ri o r t o the B IA ’s de term ination , an d w e m u st presu m e the B IA w as aw ar e of i t

. H ow ever , t he B I A di d notaddr es s ei t her Ma t t e ro f S

- V- o r S ilva -R e n g ifo

. T he B I A i ns t ead i s s ued a one

-“ [ T ]h e a v a ilab ili tyo f ju d ic ial re v iew (w h ich is 13 s peci fi cal l ypr ovi ded i n t he I N A ) nece s s ar i l ycont empl at es s om ethi ng for us t o r evi ew . ” A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 5 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W h e n th e B IA f a ils to a d e q u a telye x p lain i t s r eas oni ng, s uch thati tbecomes “i m pos s i bl e forus t o r evi ew i t s r at i onal e, ” w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand for fur t herexpl anat i on o f th e d e c is io n . I

d. 39 sen tenc e sum m ary af

firm an ce o f t h e IJ’ s d ec isi o n : “t h e re co rd [does not ] s uppor t t he appl i cant ’ s cl ai m t hats he more l i kel yt han notfac es t or ture in C ol om bi a. ” B eca us e of the B I A ’ s l ack of expl anat i on fori t s deci s i on, w e have ver yl i t t l e t o r evi ew ot her t han t he dec i s i on of t he I J

. A s des cr i bed above , t he I J ’ s deci s i on i s l i kel yerr oneous on i t s fac e for fai l i ng t o cons i dercons entor acqui es cenc e, and r egar dl es s , i n l i ghtof t he s ubs equentfi l i ng of S ilva -R e n g ifo , the IJ a t b e st a p p lied th e in c o rre c t sta n d a rd w ith r es pectt o gover nm entacqui es cenc e. A s i n S ilva -R e n g ifo , w e w i l l notnow “re vi ew t he e v id e n c e u n d e r th e c o rre c t sta n d a rd f o r a c q u ies c e n c e to d eterm in e if t h ere is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe B IA ’s concl us i on t hat[Pet i t i oner ] does not qual i fy for r el i ef undert he C onvent i on. ” 473 F. 3d at71 ( ci t i ng IN S v. V entura , 537 U

. S. 12 (2 0 0 2 ) (p e r c u ria m )). In ste a d , w e w ill re m a n d to th e B IA to gi ve i tan oppor tuni t yt o bet t erexpl ai n i t s deci s i on. 13
O n r emand, t he B I A s houl d cons i derw hetherPet i t i oner i s m or e l i kel yt han nott o be t or tur ed byt he FA R C i f re m oved to C o lo m b ia, a n d sh o u ld a p p lyth e a p p ro p ria te s tan d a rd in det er m i ni ng w hethert he C ol om bi an gover nm ent i s l i kel yt o be40 w i l l ful l ybl i nd t o Pet i t i oner ’ s r i s k of t or tur e by t he FA R C

. T he B IA sh o u ld c o n sid e r th a t th e re c o rd c o n tain s ev id e n c e th a t b o th t he pol i ce of

fi cerand the mi l i t aryoffi cert hatPet i t i onerhad been da t i ng w er e aw ar e of t he fac ts he had be en ki dnapped a nd t hr eat ened, and eve n t hough bot h w er e go v ernment re p re se n tativ e s, e a c h to ld h e r th a t th e re w a s n o th in g th e yc o u ld do t o pr ot ect her

. A l t hough t hes e s t at ement s ar e di ffe r entt han fi l i ng an off

i ci al pol i ce r epor tw i t hou tr es pons e, t hes e men e s s e n t i a l l y t o l d h e r t h a t e v e n i f t h e y wen t t o t h e pr oper a u th o rities , th e s e a u th o rities w o u ld d o n o th in g to sto p it. T h is m aybe ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hatt he C ol om bi an governm ent w as w i l l ful l y bl i nd t o s uch tr eatm entand thatt o pur s ue off i ci al a s s is ta n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile

. See Valdi vi ez o- G aldam ezv. A t t ’ y G en. , 502 F. 3d 285, 293 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng t hat“the pol i ce i gnor ed fi ve r epor t s fi l ed byG aldam ez c oncerni ng v io len c e a n d th re a ts b yg a n g m e m b e rs” a n d th a t “[ t]h is c o u ld a r g u a b l y c o n s t i tu t e g o v e r n me n t‘ a c q u i e s c e n c e ’ t o t o r tu r e a s we n o w k n o w it ”).
T he B I A s houl d al s o cons i der t he docum ent aryevi dence Pet i t i oner s ubm i t t ed, i ncl udi ng the St at e D epart m entR epor tand the A m n estyIntern ati o n al R ep o rt

. T h e S tat e D epartm en t R ep o rt sp ec ifi ca ll ystat es that the g o v ern m en t o f C o lom b ia w as a w are t hatt he FA R C r out i nel yt or tur ed, m ut i l at ed, and ki l l ed peopl e. T h e R e p o rt ill u stra tes th a t th is p ro b lem is p e rv a siv e in C ol om bi a, w her e par ami l i t ar i es s y m pathet i c t o t he governm ent oft en enga ge i n s i m i l aract i vi t i es w ith t aci tappr oval fr om t he g o v e rn m e n t. T h e re c o rd a lso sh o w s th a t th e re a re o f ten tac it non- aggr es s i on pact s betw een the gr oups i n s om e r egi ons . T he m er e fa ctt hatt he C ol om bi an governm enti s engage d i n a pr ot r act ed ci vi l w arw i t h t he FA R C does not n eces s ar i l ym ean41 t hati tcannotr emai n w i l l ful l ybl i nd t o t he t or tur ous act s of t he FA R C

. M or eover , t he r ecor d r evea l s t hatC ol om bi an author i t i es have be en es peci al l ys l ow t o end abus es agai ns tw om en orbr i ng p e rp e t r a t o r s t o j u s t i c e . S u c h a b u s e s i n c l u d e r a p e , s e x s l a v e r y, m ut i l at i on and t he l i ke. T her e i s al s o veryl i t t l e s u p p o r tfor w om en w h o h ave been a bus ed, and as A m nes t yI nt ernat i onal r epor t s , “[t ] he r es pons e of the author i t i es . . . can be as abus i ve as t he vi ol ence i t s el f. ” The B I A s houl d al s o cons i derw hether Pet i t i oner ’ s pas thar m cons t i tut es t or tur e, and w hethert he appar entabi l i t yand i ncl i nat i on of t he FA R C t o t r ack P e tit io n e r’s m o v e m e n ts in c re a se s th e lik e lih o o d th a t sh e w ill actual l ybe t or tur ed i n t he futur e.

I V. CO NC L US I ON
For t he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on i n par tand denyi ti n par t

. W i t h r es pectt o Pet i t i oner ’ s as y l um cl ai m , w e w i l l deny t he pet i t i on t o t he ext ent t hat i ti s bas ed on th e p a st p e r s e c u tio n c laim . W e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n w ith r es pectt o Pet i t i oner ’ s w el l

- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof herpart ic ul ars oci al gr oup, “w om en w ho have es cape d i nvol unt arys er vi tude a f t e rb e i ng abduct ed and c onfi ned byt he FA R C

. ” W e det er m i ne thats he i s a mem berof t hi s gr oup and t hat s he has s how n a w el l

- founded fea rof per s ecut i on bas ed on t h i s a f

f i l i a t i o n . Howev e r , we wi l l r e ma n d t o t h e BI A for fur therpr o c e e d i ngs t o det er m i ne w hetherPet i t i oner ’ s r el ocat i on t o an o therpar tof C ol om bi a w oul d m i t i gat e the r i s k of per s ecut i on. O n r emand, t h e B I A s houl d al s o cons i der P eti ti o n er’s w ith h o lding o f re m o v al claim w ith resp e c t fu ture p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h e r p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p . W e w ill a l s o g r a n tt h e p e t i t i o n wi t h r e s pe c tt o t h e CAT c l a i m,42 s peci fi cal l y for r econs i der at i on of t hi s cl ai m and appl i cat i on of the a p p rop ri ate stan d ard

. W e w il l th ere fo re rem an d to the B IA forfurt herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.