FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 27, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 91 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A9 9- 64 6- 28 5 LEONARDO JAVIER GARCIA-PER EZ, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 2 7, 2 00 9) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Leo na rd o Gar ci a-Pe rez ( “ Garci a”) p et it io ns forrev ie w of the Bo ardofIm

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) ord er af firm in g t he Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”). Garci a, a ci ti zenof Ve ne zu el a, cl ai m s

1 pa stpe rs ecu ti on an d awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture p ers ecu ti on be cau se of h is op po si ti on to th e Ch av ez g ov ern m en t. Aft er re vi ew, we di sm is s i n p artan d d en y in pa rt t he pe ti ti on forrev ie w. As a thr es ho ldm at te r, we di sm is s Gar ci a’s pe ti ti on to th e ex te nthe ch al le ng es th e d en ia l o f hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n a s unt im el y . W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e d et erm in at io ns th athi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n was un ti m el y an d t ha t h e fai le d t o s ho w ext rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces or c hang edco un try con di ti on s tha t jus ti fie d h is un ti m el y

fil in g. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(3 ); C ha co n- Bo te ro v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 27 F.3d95 4, 9 57 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An al ie n s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al m us t s ho w th athi s “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edinth atco un try becaus e o f [h is ] race , rel ig io n, na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” INA § 24 1( b) (3 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A). Inot he r wor ds , th e al ie n b ears th e b ur de n to sh ow tha t i t i s “ m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ” th athe wil l b e p ers ecu te d o n a cco un t o f On appe al, Gar cia doe s not challeng e the de nial of re lief under United Nations 1 Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) and, thus, has aba ndoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2on e o f th e fi ve pro te ct edgro un ds if re tu rn edto hi s co un try. Mend oz a v . U.S.

Att ’y Gen., 3 27 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h y ph en s o m it te d) . To es tabl is h el ig ib il it y , th e al ie n m

us t s ho w eit he r th athe su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on or t ha t h e ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . See 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (1 )-(2 ); Men do za, 3 27 F.3d12 87 . 2 Altho ug h t he INA do es no t d efi ne pe rs ecu ti on , th is Co urt h as st at edth at

“pe rs ecu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t re qu iri ng m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n.” Rui z v . Gon zal ez, 4 79 F.3d76 2, 7 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . This Co urt h as co nc lu de d t ha t thr eat s i n co nju nc ti on with b rie f de te nt io ns or am in orph y si cal att ackth atdi d n otres ul t i n se rio us ph y si cal in

jury do n otris e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . See, e.g ., Dj on dav. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 14 F.3d11 68 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (3 6- ho urde te nt io n, b eat in g a nd th reatof a rres t); Zhen g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 51 F.3d12 87 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (5 -d ay de te nt io n) . Here, we ca nn otsay the ev id en ce co m pe ls a co nc lu si on th atth e in ci de nt s

“We re view only

the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent that itexpressly adopts the 2 I J ’s opinion.” Al Najjar

v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “ Insofar as the [BIA] adopts the I J ’s re asoning , we will re view the I J ’s dec ision as well.” I d. Her e, bec ause the BIA re lied upon the re asons identified in the I J ’s orde r, we revie w both decisions. We revie w a fac tual deter

mination that an alien is statutorily ineligible f

or withholding of

remova l under the substantial evidence test. I d. at 1283-84. Unde r the substantial evide nce sta ndard, “ we must find that the re cord not only

supports reve rsal, but compels it.” Mendoza, 327 F .3d at 1287. 3Garci a d es cri be d a m ou nt edto pe rs ecu ti on . Overfou r y ears , Garci a ex pe rie nc ed 3 ve rb al th reat s an d h aras sm en t, o ne in ci de ntof c ar v an da li sm an d t wo b rie f ai rp ort de te nt io ns . Garci a al so ex pe rie nc edtwo be at in gs th atdi d n otin vo lv e weap on s, res ul te d i n o nl y

m in orin juri es an d o ccu rredov er thr ee years ap art . This m is tre atm en t d oe s n otha ve th e sam e le ve l o f se ve rit y fou ndinot he r cas es in whi chth e rec or d h as co m pe ll eda co nc lu si on th atth e p et it io ne r was pe rs ecu te d. See, e.g ., De San ta m ari a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 25 F.3d99 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (in vo lv in g v erb al th reat s, as saul t re su lt in g i n h os pi ta li zat io n, trau m a fro m to rtu re an d fa ta l s ho ot in g o f fam il y gro un ds ke ep er wh o re fu se d t o re ve al pe ti ti on er’s lo cat io n, k idnapp in g a ndbe at in g wi th gu ns res ul ti ng inho sp it al iz at io n) ; Ni fta li ev v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 04 F.3d12 11 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nv ol vi ng th reat s, num ero us in te rro ga ti on s an d b eat in gs by pol ic e dur in g a15 -d ay de te nt io n re su lt in g i n 2 - m on th ho sp it al iz at io n, an d t wo s ub se qu en t p hysic al ass au lt s o n s tre et ); M ejia v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 98 F.3d12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nv ol vi ng writ te n t hr eat s an d

“ co nd ol en ce” l et te r, as saul t wi th a ro ckan d d et en ti on at g unpo in t, dur in g wh ic h pe ti ti on er was th ro wn t o t he gro un d a ndhi s fa ce was sm as he d wi th a ri fle bu tt , br eak in g h is no se an d re qu iri ng su rg ery); Ru iz , 47 9 F .3d76 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)

Be cause we c onclude that substantial evide nce suppor ts the finding tha

t the incidents 3 Gar cia sa y s he suffe red, ta

ken as true , do not rise to the level of perse cution, we do not address Gar cia’ s arg

ument that the I J did not make a c lean c redibility deter mination. 4(in vo lv in g v erb al th reat s, b rie f de te nt io n a ndph y si cal ass au ltdu rin g wh ic h

an ot he r pe rs onwas s ho t try in g t o e sc ap e, an ot he r br ie f de te nt io n i n wh ic h pe ti ti on er was be at enwith weapo ns an d k idnapp in g dur in g wh ic h p et it io ne r’s wife was rap ed , hi s fa rm

an im al s wer e k il le d a ndpe ti ti on er was for cedto m arch in to th e jun gl e, whe re h e was he ldfor15 da y s b efo re h e es cap ed ). Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce al so supp orts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Gar ci a fai le d t o d em on st rat e a wel l-f ou nd edfear o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . To sh ow fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on , an a li en“ m

us t d em on st rat e th athi s o r he r fear of pe rs ecu ti on is subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d 12 62 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Furth er, “ [a]n al ie n c anno t d em on st rat e th at[he ] m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o n apro te ct edgro un d i f th e [BI A] fin ds th atth e al ie n c ou ldav oi d afutur e th reatby relo cat in g t o a no th er p artof [ hi s] co un try.” Tan v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d13 69 , 13 75 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) ; 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (2 ). Evi de nc e th atanali en ’s fam il y co nt in ue s t o re si de un ha rm edina co un try dimini sh es a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture pe rs ecu ti on cla im . See Ru iz , 44 0 F .3dat 1 25 9. Garci a tr av el edba ckan d fo rth be twee n Ven ezu el a an d t he Uni te d S ta te s se ve n t im es du rin g the pe rio d h e was be in g t hr eat en edan d h aras se d. Al l s ev en tri ps oc cu rredaft er the m os t s ev ere i nc id en t, a p hysic al ass au ltinNov em be r 19 99 5in whi chhe was h itinth e h eadan d s to m ach an d was tre at edat aho sp it al fortwo

ho ur s. Garc ia ’s fam il y

co nt in ue s t o re si de inVene zu el a unh arm ed . Garci a’s ap pl ic at io n s ta te d t ha t a m in is te r atGarci a’s Ven ezu el anchur chha d re cei ve d de ath t hr eat s an d was fou ndde adon Apri l 2 4, 2 00 6. Ho wev er, Garc iadi d n ot ex pl ai n h is rel at io ns hi p t o t he m in is te r or why th e g ro up res po ns ib le forth e m in is te r’s m

ur de r wou ldco ns id er Garc iato be th e sa m e type o f po li ti cal op po ne nt . Add it io na ll y , altho ug h Gar ci a h adth e b ur de n t o s ho w itwou ldno t b e reas on ab le for

hi m to rel oc at e, se e 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (3 )(i ), Garci a d idno t te st ify tha t h e co ul d n otrel oc at e wit hi n Ven ezu el a o r subm itev id en ce o f th e na ti on wid e rea chof t he pro -Ch av ez g ro up s t arg et in g h im . Ind eed , as the 4 go ve rn m en t p oi nt s o ut , itap pe ars all th e al le ge d i nc id en ts oc cu rredinGarci a’s ho m e to wn. Giv enth e lo w lev el of Ga rci a’s po li ti cal in vo lv em en t, wh ic h co ns is te d m ai nl y

of p as si ng ou t p ro pa ga nd a an d o rg an iz in g s tu de ntm eet in gs , Garci a o ffer edno ev id en ce tha t, af te r a fi ve -y ear abs en ce, the se pro -Ch av ez gr oups wou ldfol lo w hi m to ot he r parts of Ve ne zu el a. Acco rd in gl y , we den y hi s pe ti ti on with re sp ectto hi s wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al cla im . DISMI SSED I N PART, DENIED I N PART. Gar cia a rgues that the IJerr ed by

failingto consider the Country Report for V enezuela or 4 include it in the rec ord. Howe ver, w e do not have jurisdiction to review this issue beca use Gar cia f ailed to exhaust it by

raisingit before the B IA. See Ama ya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). 6