FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 7, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14135 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 79- 471- 146 & A 79- 471- 147 L U Z E L S A C E D I E L , R A M O N B A H A M O N - A R D I L A , J U A N S E B A S T I A N B A H A M O N C E D I E L , R A M O N I G N A C I O B A H A M O N , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ar c h 7, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Congress re cently direc ted that all petitions for review will be g overne d under the 1 perma nent provisions of the Illeg al Refor m and Immigra

nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996 ( “the IIRIRA”). SeeHuangv. U.S. Att’y Gen., 429 F .3d 1002, 1008 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (c iting to the REALID Act of

2005, Pub.L . 109-13, 119 Stat 231 (May 11, 2005)). 2 L uz E l saC edi el , her husband , R am on B aham on -A rdi l a, and thei r s on s, Juan S e ba s t i a n B a ha m on C e di e l a nd R a m on I gna c i o B a ha m on, thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ’ s ” ) or de ra f f i rm i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) tw o de c i s i ons , de ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o I N A §§ 208, 241, 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231, a nd f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n o n T o r tu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1241( b) ( 3) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe 1 B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthey f ai l ed t o est abl i sh st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty f or ei ther as yl um or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A , or for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T , w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. F or the re as on s s et f or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny the i rpe t i t i on. O n M ay 9 , 2 0 0 0 , L u z E l sa C ed i el , a n at i v e an d ci t i zen o f C o l o m b i a, l ast e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s a s an o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito rf o rp le a s u r e , w ith a uthor i z a t i on t o r e m a i n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orape r i od nott o e xc e e d J une 8, 2000. I n A pr i l 2001, s he f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

orr e l i e f f r om r e m ova l a ndCediel included a s riders in her application for

relief her husba

nd, Ramon Ba

hamon 2 Ardila, a nd her minor son, Juan Sebastian Ba hamon Cediel, who also werenatives and c itiz ens of Colombia, and who had entere d the United States for pleasurein 1997 and 1998 re spectively . On J anuar

y 23, 2002, Cediel’s other son, Ramon Ignacio B ahamon, who also was a native and citizen of Colombi a, and who had entered theUnited States with a student visa in October 1999, filed a separate asylum application beca use he w as older tha

n 21. However, neither

Cediel’s husband, nor her sons, g ave independent grounds for relief. Thus, f or purpose s of this opinion, ref erences to Cediel also will i nclude her husband a nd sons. On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 3 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. This leg islation created a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security , abolished the I NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department. 3 s uppor t i ng doc um e nt s , a s s e r t i ng tha t , i f s he r e turne d t o C ol om bi a , s he w oul d be p e r s e c u te d b y th e R e v o lu tio n a ry A rm e d F o r c e s o f C o lo m b ia( “F A R C ” ) , ag u e r illa organi za t i on , on ac coun tof her m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p and her p o litic a l o p in io n . C e d ie l s p e c if ic a lly c o n te n d e d th a t, b e c a u s e s h e h a d a c c e s s to 2 c o n f i d e n t i a l , p e r s o n a l a n d f

i n a n c i a l d a t aa s aM a n a g e rf o rBa n c a f

e , FA RC m e m b e r s h a d a s k e d h e rto p r o v id e th e m w ith th is in f o rm a tio n , s u b

je c te d h e rto psyc ho l og i ca l t orture throu gh re peat ed t el epho ne ca l l s a ther hom e, and threa t ened to k ill h e r . In S ept em ber 200 1, the form erIm m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce ( “ I N S ” ) s e rve d C e di e l a nd he rf a m i l y w i th not i c e s t o appe a r( “ N T A s ” ) , c ha r gi ng 3 them re spec t i vel y w i th rem ov abi l i ty e i ther f or re m ai ni ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es for a p e r i o d l o n g e rth a n p e rmi tt e d , p u r s u a n tt o I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) , 8 U . S. C. § 1227( a ) ( 1) ( B ) , orf

orf a i l i ng t o c om pl y w i th the c ondi t i ons of the non- i m m i gr a nt s t a tu s u n d e rw h i c h h e w a s a d mi tt e d , p u r s u a n tt o I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C.4

§ 1 22 7(a) (1)( C )( i ). C edi el appeare d b ef ore a n IJ a nd , throu gh coun se l , conceded th e p e titio n e r s ’ r e m o v ab ility . In N ov em ber 200 3, ata hea ri ng on the pet i t i on er s’ appl i ca t i on s f or re l i ef fro m rem o v al , C ed i el an d h er ad u l tso n , R am o n , w h o w ere th e o n l y w i tn esses, o ffered th e fo l l o w i n g t est i m o n y. C ed i el t est i fi ed th at , th ro u g h h er em p l o ym en tas a B a n k C o o r d in a to rw ith B a n c a f e in B o g o ta , C o lo m b ia , am ix o f ap u b lic a n d p r iv a te ba nk, s he pr i m a r i l y m a na ge d gove rnm e nt a l a c c ount s a nd pe r s ona l a c c ount s f or pr e f e r e nt i a l c l i e nt s , i nc l udi ng m i ni s t e r s , pe r s e c ut or s [ s i c ] , a nd othe rpe opl e “ of veryhi gh i m po rt ance . ” P ri or t o h erl ea vi ng thi s posi t i on i n A pri l 19 98 , she w as e x p e c tin g to b e n a m e d aV ic e P r e s id e n t in B a n c a f e . In S ept em ber 199 7, a m em ber of the F A R C approached C edi el atB anca fe a n d a s k e d C e d ie l to g iv e h im f in a n c ia l a n d p e r s o n a l in f o rm a tio n f

o rc e r ta in B anca fe cust om er s. A ft erC edi el decl i ned t o coo pera t e a nd the F A R C m em ber l ef t the bu i l di ng , C edi el re po rt ed the i nci dentt o B anca fe ’ s s ec uri ty. C edi el , ho w ever , d i d n o trep o rti tt o h er su p erv i so r b ecau se C ed i el h ad b eco m e v ery u p set . S h e al so ne ve rl e a rne d w he the rB a nc a f e ’ s s e c ur i ty e ve rc onduc t e d a n i nve s t i ga t i on. A f e w da y s a f

t e rthi s i nc i de nt , C e di e l r e c e i ve d a tw ork at e l e phone c a l l f r om th e s a m e m e m b e ro f

th e F A R C . T h e c a lle rto ld h e rth a t “it w a s g o in g to b e r e a lly g o o d f o r[ C e d ie l]” if

s h e c o o p e r a te d w ith th e F A R C b y p r o v id in g th e p r e v io u s ly r e q u e s te d in f

o rm a tio n . C e d ie l a g a in d e c lin e d to p r o v id e in f o rm a tio n . A f

te rth isCediel conc eded that, by not reportingthis threat, she knowing ly had violated a

bank 4 policy to report thre ats ag ainst the security of Colombia. She, however , was a ware that, af

ter another employee of

Ba ncaf e, who he ld a less pre stigious position, had repor ted a similar experienceto the Ba

ncaf e’s administration, his complaint had not been investigated, and someone had strapped a

bomb to his body

and detained him in his office. 5 telep h o n e c all, C ed iel, w h o w as fe ar fu l, n eith erre p o rted th e c all t o B an ca fe ’s se curi ty nor t o h ersupervi sors . C edi el al so subsequent l y r ec ei ved ei gh tt o t en 4 te le p h o n e c a lls a t w o rk , in c lu d in g s e v e r a l “d e a th th r e a ts ,” w ith th e la s t c a ll o c c u rr i n g i n J a n u a ry 1 9 9 8 . M o r e o v e r , i n N o v e mb e r1 9 9 7 , ame mb e ro f th e FA RC c a lle d C e d ie l a t h o m e a n d in f o rm e d h e rth a t, b e c a u s e o f h e rf a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith the F A R C ’ s dem ands, the F A R C consi dere d h era “ m i l i t ary obj ec t i ve. ” T he ca l l er a l s o i nf orm e d C e di e l tha tthe F A R C kne w of he rw he r e about s a nd w he r e s he a nd her f am i l y l i ved. C edi el agai n d i d n otre po rtthi s c al l t o anyon e. Inst ea d, C edi el a n d h e rh u s b a n d d e c id e d to le a v e C o lo m b iato p r o te c t th e m s e lv e s a n d th e irf a m ily . I n A pr i l 1998, C e di e l l e f the rj ob w i th B a nc a f

e , gi vi ng he re m pl oy e rthe expl anat i on thatshe had been si ck. C edi el di d n ott el l her e m pl oyerthe re al r e a s o n , th a t is , th a t s h e h a d b e e n th r e a te n e d , b e c a u s e “w h e n th is h ap p e n s in C ol om bi athe onl y thi ng tha ty ou do i s pr ot e c ty our s e l f a nd pr ot e c ty ourf

a m i l y or y ou l e a ve , y ou ha ve t o f l e e . ” C e di e l ne ve rtr i e d t o r e l oc a t e t o a nothe ra r e aof C ol om bi aout s i de of

B ogot abe c a us e s he be l i e ve d tha ti tw oul d be e a s i e rf or m e m b e r s o f

th e F A R C to f

in d th e m in as m a lle rc ity o rto w n .In her a pplication for relief f

rom removal, Cediel stated that she lef t Colombia and 5 cameto the United States with her minor son for the first time in May

1998. 6 A ft erC edi el l ef

tC ol om bi a, she m ade f i ve re turn tri ps t o C ol om bi a, at 5 ap p r o x im a te s ix - m o n th in te rv a ls , to d e te rm in e w h e th e rit w a s s a f e f o rh e rf a m ily to re turn. In M ay20 00 , du ri ng her l as tre turn tri p t o C ol om bi a, she di sc ov er ed that h e rf a m ily ’s h o m e h a d b e e n v a n d a liz e d , in c lu d in g as ig n p a in te d o n th e w a ll, w hi ch st at ed “ death t o tra i t ors” and h ad been si gn ed by the F A R C . C edi el t es t i fi ed th atsh e b el i ev ed th at , i f sh e retu rn ed t o C o l o m b i a, sh e w o u l d b e k i l l ed b ecau se s he ha d be e n de c l a r e d a“ m i l i t a ry obj e c t i ve . ” O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, how e ve r , s he c onc e de d tha tF A R C onl y ha d r e que s t e d tha ts he gi ve the m i nf orm a t i on on B a n c a f e ’s c u s to m e r s , a n d th a t s h e n e v e rh a d b e e n p h y s ic a lly h a rm e d in C o lo m b ia . Ra mo n a l s o t e s t i f

i e d , s t a t i n g th a t , a l th o u g h h e h a d n o te x p e r i e n c e d p r o b l e ms w h e n h e h a d liv e d in C o lo m b ia , h e b e lie v e d th a t h e w o u ld b e s u b je c te d to h a rm if he re turned t o C ol om bi a bec ause F A R C m em bers had t ol d h i s m other thatshe w as a “ m i l i t ary obj ec t i ve” a nd thather e nt i re fa m i l y w ou l d b e ki l l ed. R am on st at ed, as w e l l , tha the ( 1) ha d s oughta s y l um be c a us e he w a s a f r a i d, a nd ( 2) di d notbe l i e ve tha the c oul d a voi d f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on by r e l oc a t i ng w i thi n C ol om bi abe c a us e “ the gu er i l l as kn ow w here everybod y i s there . ” T h e g o v er n m en t su b m itted fo r th e I J’s r ev iew th e U .S . S tate D ep ar tm en t’ s 20 00 C ou ntryR eporton H um an R i gh t s P ra ct i ce s f or C ol om bi a ( “ 20 00 C ou ntry7

R e p o r t” ) . T h e 2 0 0 0 C o u n try R e p o r t in c lu d e dth a t C o lo m b iais ac o n s titu tio n a l, m ul t i party dem ocra cy , bu tthatthe go vernm ent ’ s hum an-r i gh t s r ec ord rem ai ned po or. Int ernal se curi ty i s m ai nt ai ned b y both the arm ed force s a nd the nat i on al po l i ce . T w o m aj or gu er i l l a group s, w i th the F A R C bei ng the l ar gest , consi stof an es t i m at ed 11 , 00 0 t o 1 7, 00 0 ful l -t i m e c om bat ant s, w ho ar e organi ze d i nt o m ore than 100 s e m i - a ut onom ous gr oups . T he gue r i l l a s “ e xe r c i s e d as i gni f i c a ntde gr e e of t e rr i t or i a l i nf

l ue nc e a nd i ni t i a t e d a rm e d a c t i on i n ne a r l y 1, 000 outof 1, 085 m uni c i pa l i t i e s [ appr oxi m a t e l y 92% ] dur i ng [ 2000] , w hi c h w a s appr oxi m a t e l y the sa m e l evel as 19 99 . ” I nd ee d, the gu er i l l as (1) “ re gu l ar l y a tt ac ked ci vi l i an popul a t i ons , c om m i tt e d m a s s a c r e s a nd s um m a ry e xe c ut i ons a nd ki l l e d m e di c a l a nd r e l i gi ous pe r s onne l ” ; ( 2) he l d m or e tha n 1, 000 ki dnappe d c i vi l i a ns a nd 500 ki dn apped sol di er s a nd po l i ce ; and (3) “ re gu l at ed tra vel , com m er ce and o ther ac t i vi t i es . ” A ddi t i ona l l y , the r e c or d i nc l ude d the U . S . S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt ’ s J une 1997 P rofi l e of A sy l um C l ai m s a nd C ou ntryC on di t i on s f or C ol om bi a ( “ 19 97 P rofi l e” ), w hi ch advi se d thatan es t i m at ed 10 , 00 0 t o 1 5, 00 0 ful l -t i m e guerri l l as had o r g a n iz e d in o v e r1 0 0 g r o u p s a n d r e p r e s e n te d a“g r o w in g c h a lle n g e to [ g] ove rnm e nts e c ur i ty f or c e s , ” a l ong w i th i nf

l ue nc i ng m or e tha n ha l f of the coun try ’ s m un i ci pal i t i es . G ueri l l a t ar get s i ncl ud ed tho se pers on s w ho (1) r ef used to s u b m it to r e c ru itm e n t o re x to r tio n , a n d ( 2 ) w e r e s u s p e c te d o f c o llab o r a tin g w ith8

a uthor i t i e s . T hi s 1997 P r of i l e , how e ve r , a l s o di s c us s e d tha tC ol om bi ai s al a r ge coun tryof m ore than a m i l l i on square ki l om et er s a nd 35 . 5 m i l l i on peop l e, that vi ol e nc e ge ne r a l l y i s c e nt e r e d i n af e w pr ovi nc e s , a nd tha tpe r s ons “ f l e e i ng gu er i l l as or po l i ce /m i l i t ary har as sm entor threa t s i n con fl i ct i ve zones usual l y a re abl e t o fi nd peac ef

ul re si dence el se w here i n the coun try . ” T he I J f ound a l l of

the pe t i t i one r s r e m ovabl e , de ni e d the i rappl i c a t i ons f or a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng unde rthe I N A a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T , a nd or de r e d the m r e m ove d t o C ol om bi a . T he I J di s c us s e d tha t , a l though he ha d f ound C e di e l ’ s t e s t i m ony t o be “ c a ndi d a nd c ons i s t e ntw i th he rappl i c a t i on f or as yl um , ” he had foun d i l l og i ca l her f ai l ure t o st op a m an w ho had ent er ed B anca fe for the sol e purpo se of sol i ci t i ng a c ri m i nal ac t . T he IJal so expl ai ned thathe had fo u n d i l l o g i cal C ed i el ’ s fai l u re t o rep o rtth e su b seq u en tth reat en i n g p h o n e cal l s, a n d h e b e lie v e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t lik e lyw o u ld h a v e ta k e n f u r th e ra c tio n if no t i fi ed. M oreover, the IJno t ed thatC edi el di d n otl ea ve C ol om bi a unt i l M ay 19 98 , di d n otm ake a ny ef fortt o l ea rn i f c on di t i on s had changed d uri ng her r eturn tri ps t o C ol om bi a, and cou l d h ave gathere d thi s s am e i nform at i on by ca l l i ng her fr i ends. T he IJconcl ud ed that , C edi el ’ s c re di bi l i ty w as “ som ew hatdi m i ni shed. ” T he I J f ur the rde t e rm i ne d tha tC e di e l ha d f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. T he I J di s c us s e d tha t , a l though C edi el had al l eged psyc ho l og i ca l t orture i n h erappl i ca t i on for r el i ef , she had9

pres ent ed no evi dence s ho w i ng thatanyone had h arm ed her, despi t e thatm em bers of the F A R C kne w w he r e s he w orke d a nd l i ve d. T he I J e xpl a i ne d tha t , w i th the p as sa g e o f a t l ea st th re e y ea rs sin ce C ed iel’ s las t trip to C o lo m b ia, C ed iel’ s r e s ig n a tio n f

r o m B a n c a f

e , a n d th e f

o r e c lo s u r e o f

h e rf a m ily h o m e , it w a s u n lik e ly th a t m e m b e r s o f

th e F A R C w o u ld b e in te r e s te d in h e rw h e n s h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . T h e I Jf

o u n d th a t C e d ie l h a df

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e u n w il li n g to p ro tect h erin th e f u tu re . M o re o v er , th e I J e x p lain ed th at C ed iel’ s r e f us a l t o c oope r a t e w i th agor i l l aor ga ni z a t i on di d notne c e s s a r i l y e s t abl i s h the e x p r e s s io n o f

ap o litic a l o p in io n . B as ed on these fi nd i ng s, the IJconcl ud ed thatC edi el had fai l ed t o sho w that ar e a s onabl e pe r s on i n he rs i tua t i on w oul d f e a rr e turni ng t o C ol om bi aon a c c ount o f o n e o f th e f iv e s ta tu to ry f

a c to r s a n d , th u s , th a t s h e d id n o t q u a lif y f o ra s y lu m . T he I J de t e rm i ne d tha t , be c a us e C e di e l ha d f a i l e d t o m e e the rl ow e rbur de n of pr oof f ora s y l um , s he a l s o c oul d note s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . T he I J a l s o e xpl a i ne d tha tC e di e l w a s note l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of rem o v al u n d er th e C A T b ecau se sh e fai l ed t o p resen tev i d en ce sh o w i n g , m u ch l ess al l ege, thatshe had been t ortured by the ac t , ac qu i es ce nce, or consentof an offi ci al o rap e r s o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity . C e d ie l ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n s to th e B I A , a r g u in g th a t th e I J ( 1 ) f a ile d to c ons i de ra l l of

the e vi de nc e be f

or e hi m i n r e nde r i ng hi s de c i s i on, i nc l udi ng10

e v id e n c e a s to th e c o n d itio n s o f th e c o u n try ; ( 2 ) e rr e d b y f in d in g th a t C e d ie l d id nots uf f e rpa s tpe r s e c ut i on, orha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on; (3) f ai l ed t o ci t e t o sup po rti n the re cord for hi s f i nd i ng s thatC edi el vi ol at ed B anca fe ’ s pol i ci es by no tre po rt i ng the threa t s, and thatthe C ol om bi an autho ri t i es w oul d ha ve t a ke n a c t i ons t o pr ot e c the r ; ( 4) f a i l e d t o gi ve C e di e l ’ s t e s t i m ony p r o p e rw e ig h t; a n d ( 5 ) e rr o n e o u s ly r e lie d o n th e f a c t th a t C e d ie l d id n o t a tte m p t to r e l oc a t e w i thi n C ol om bi aw he n the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e d tha tthe F A R C h a d ac o u n try - w id e p r e s e n c e . In di sm i ss i ng thi s app ea l , the B IA expl ai ned that , as sum i ng thatC edi el had t e s t i f i e d c r e di bl y , s he ha d note s t abl i s he d e i the raw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, or thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthatshe w ou l d b e per se cut ed on ac coun tof a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d . Th e BI A d i s c u s s e d th a tth e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d th a t( 1 ) “ th e FA RC si m pl y w ant ed i nform at i on t o w hi ch the re spon denthad acce ss ”; and (2) C edi el had n otshow n thatthe F A R C had threa t ened her because of a ny i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on or for a ny other prot ec t ed grou nd . A dd i t i on al l y, the B IA concl ud ed that C edi el had fai l ed t o sho w thatshe w as el i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T because s he had n otal l eged thatshe w ou l d b e s ub j ec t ed t o t orture i nf l i c t e d by , ora tthe i ns t i ga t i on orc ons e ntof , apubl i c of

f i c i a l orothe rpe r s on a c tin g in a n o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity .11

T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue on appe a l tha tthe y e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l by s how i ng thr ough both C e di e l ’ s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony a nd ba c kgr ound doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e tha t , be c a us e of C e di e l ’ s m e m be r s hi p i n a soci al grou p, thati s, her e m pl oym entw i th B anca fe , or base d o n h eri m pu t ed pol i t i c a l opi ni on, the y ha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rtha tthe y w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d upon th e irr e tu rn to C o lo m b ia . T h e p e titio n e r s a ls o c o n te n d th a t th e I J f a ile d to ta k e in to ac coun tthe coun trycond i t i on s i n C ol om bi a i n fi nd i ng thatC edi el ’ s a ct s w er e i l l ogi c a l a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntw oul d ha ve pr ot e c t e d he ri f s he ha d r e por t e d the thr e a t s . M or e ove r , the pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe y e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i ty f or w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe C A T by s how i ng tha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l y tha n not th a t th e y w ill b e to r tu r e d u p o n th e irr e tu rn to C o lo m b ia . B ec ause the B IA di d n otexpres sl y a do ptthe IJ ’ s opi ni on i n the i nst antca se , w e r e vi e w onl y the B I A ’ s de c i s i on. S e e A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng tha tw e “ r e vi e w onl y the [ B I A ’ s ] de c i s i on, e xc e pt t o the e xt e nttha ti te xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on” ) . T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n ale g a l d e te rm in a tio n , o u rr e v ie w is d e n o v o . D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). O n the other hand , the B IA ’ s f

ac tual det erm i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence t es t , and w e “ m ustaf

fi rm the B IA ’ s dec i si on i f i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ”12

A l N ajjar, 2 5 7 F .3 d at 1 2 8 3 -8 4 (q u o tati o n an d m ar k s o m itted ). T h u s, th e B IA ’s f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s w ill b e r e v e r s e d “o n ly w h e n th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls ar e v e r s a l; th e m e r e f

a c t th a t th e r e c o r d m a y s u p p o r t ac o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n is n o t e n o u g h to j us t i f y ar e ve r s a l of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f

i ndi ngs . ” A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 2 4 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , if c r e d ib le , a n a lie n ’s te s tim o n y m a y b e s u f f ic ie n t to s us t a i n the bur de n of

pr oof w i thoutc orr obor a t i on. F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “C o n v e r s e ly , a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on a l one m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe de ni a l of a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on. ” I d. H ow e ve r , w he n a n I J “ s a y s nottha t[ the I J ] be l i e ve s the a s y l um s e e k e ro r[ th a t] [ th e I J ] d is b e lie v e s h e r. . . th e r e v ie w in g C o u r t is le f t in th e d a rk ,” a n d th a ta n I J mu s tma k e a“ c l e a n d e t e rmi n a t i o n [ ] o f c r e d i b i l i ty . ” Y a n g v . U . S. A tt’y G e n ., 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T hus , w e c onc l ude d i n Y a ng tha t , a l though the I J m a de ar e f e r e nc e t o the pet i t i on er ’ s c l ai m as a “ ri di cul ou s f abri ca t i on ” a nd st at ed thathi s t es t i m on y w as

“ ex trem el y i n co n si st en tan d [m ad e] ab so l u t el y n o sen se w h at so ev er, ” th ese st at em ent s di d n otconst i tut e a n adv er se cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on thatw as d is p o s itiv e o n ap p e a l. I d . In th e in stan t cas e, th e I J e x p lain ed th at, b ec au se h e h ad fo u n d th at C ed iel’ s ac t s w er e i l l og i ca l and u nrea sonabl e, he had d et erm i ned thather c re di bi l i ty w asPursuant to the REALID Act, I NA § 208(b) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1), wa s amende d 6 to add “TheSecretary

of Homela

nd Security

or the Attorney

General,”as if enacted on Ma rch 1, 20 03 . Se ePub .L . 1 09 -1 3, 11 9 St at. 2 31 (M ay 11 , 2 00 5) , D ivi sio n B , Se c . 1 01 , 8 U. S.C. § 1158(b)( 1) and note(1). 13 “ s om e w ha tdi m i ni s he d. ” S i m i l a rt o the f a c t s i n Y a ng, how e ve r , the I J di d not c l e a r l y s t a t e tha the w a s m a ki ng a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng. S e e i d. I nde e d, the I J a l s o s t a t e d tha the ha d f ound C e di e l ’ s t e s t i m ony t o be “ c a ndi d a nd c ons i s t e nt w i th he rappl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um . ” M or e ove r , the B I A , i n a f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s opi ni on, a s s um e d f

orpurpos e s of

a r gum e nttha tC e di e l ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s c r e di bl e a nd, i n st ead , d i sm i ssed th e ap p eal b ased o n i t s d et erm i n at i o n th atsh e fai l ed t o est ab l i sh st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef fr om re m ov al . W e, there fore , do no tconcl ud e that e ith e rth e I J o rth e B I A m a d e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n th a t is d is p o s itiv e o n ap p e a l. A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n, ori s pr e s e nti n, the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y appl y f or a s y l um . I N A § 208( a ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he S e c r e t a ry of H om e l a nd S e c u r ity o rth e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l h a s d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts the IN A ’ s def

i ni t i on of a “ re fugee. ” I N A § 2 08 (b)( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(1). A 6

“ re fugee” i s def

i ned as any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on,14

na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup , or po l i t i ca l o p in io n . . .. IN A § 1 01 (a )( 42 )( A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). “ T he as yl um appl i ca ntca rr i es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory ‘ r e f

uge e ’ s t a tus . ” D - M uhum e d, 388 F . 3d a t818. T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , the pe t i t i one rm us t , w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e d ib le e v id e n c e , d e m o n s tr a te ( 1 ) p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f as ta tu to r ily l i st ed fact o r, o r (2 ) a “ w el l -fo u n d ed fear” that th e st atu t o ri l y l i st ed fact o r w i l l cau se f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. I f the pe t i t i one rde m ons tr a t e s pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the r e i s ar e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on tha the ha s aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R § 208. 13( b) ( 1) . I f he ca nn otshow pastpers ec ut i on , then the pet i t i on erm ustdem on stra t e aw el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n th a t is b o th s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b je c tiv e ly re as on abl e. A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 89 . T he subj ec t i ve com po nentca n b e proved “b y th e ap p lic a n t’s c r e d ib le te s tim o n y th a t h e o rs h e g e n u in e ly f e a r s p e r s e c u tio n ,” w h i l e th e o b

j ect i v e co m p o n en t“ can b e fu l fi l l ed ei th er b y est ab l i sh i n g p ast pe r s e c ut i on ortha the ors he ha s agood r e a s on t o f e a rf utur e pe r s e c ut i on. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). A n a l i e n s e e ki ng w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A s i m i l a r l y m us ts how th at h is “l ife o r f

re ed o m w o u ldb e th re aten ed in th at co u n try b ec au se o f th e a li en ’s ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l15

opi ni on. ” S e e I N A § 241( b) ( 3) ( A ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T he bur de n of p r o o f f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, h o w e v e r , is “m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t,” a n d , th u s , is “m o r e s tr in g e n t” th a n th e s ta n d a r d f o ra s y lu m r e lie f

. S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T h e s ta tu te s g o v e rn in g a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l p r o te c t n o t o n ly a ga i ns tpe r s e c ut i on by gove rnm e ntf or c e s , buta l s o a ga i ns tpe r s e c ut i on by nongo vernm ent al grou ps thatthe go vernm entca nn otcontrol , such as the F A R C . S ee S anchez v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 39 2 F . 3d 43 4, 43 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). H ow ever ,

“ [ p] e r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof . . . pol i t i c a l opi ni on . . . i s pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof the vi c t i m ’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, notthe pe r s e c ut or ’ s . ” I d. a t437- 38 ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 482, 112 S . C t . 812, 816, 117 L . E d. 2d 38 ( 1992) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ) . T h e ap p lic a n t m u s t p r e s e n t “s p e c if ic , d e ta ile d f

a c ts s how i ng agood r e a s on t o f e a rtha the w i l l be s i ngl e d outf orpe r s e c ut i on on ac coun tof such an op i ni on . ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 87 . T hu s, evi dence that e ith e ris c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f p r iv a te v io le n c e o rth e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to c oope r a t e w i th gue r i l l a s , ortha tm e r e l y s how s tha tape r s on ha s be e n the vi c t i m of c r im in a l a c tiv ity , d o e s n o t c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n as ta tu to r ily prot ec t ed grou nd . S anchez, 39 2 F . 3d at43 8. F urtherm ore, al tho ug h the IN A do es notde f i ne pe r s e c ut i on, w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t“ m e r e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s nota m ount t o p er se cut i on , ” a nd thatpers ec ut i on i tas “ an extre m e c on ce ptre qu i ri ng m ore than16

af e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on. ” S e pul ve da , 401 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d m a rk s o m itte d ) . I n S a nc he z , w e e xa m i ne d ape t i t i one r ’ s c ha l l e nge t o the I J ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe pet i t i on erw as no tel i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al because the pet i t i on erhad no tshow n thatthe F A R C ’ s i nt er es ti n h erw as re l at ed t o a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . S ee S anchez, 39 2 F . 3d at43 6. In supp ortof the pet i t i on er ’ s a rgum entthat th is d e c is io n w a s e rr o n e o u s , s h e c ite d to h e rte s tim o n y th a t, a f te rs h e r e f

u s e d to coop er at e w i th the F A R C , and b ec ause she w as “ no ti n agreement w i th the w ay [F A R C had] destroye d the coun try , ” the F A R C had d em anded m on eyfr om her, and, af t ershe had l ef

tC ol om bi a, had threa t ened her and anotherfa m i l y m em ber w h o h a d r e f

u s e d to c o o p e r a te . S e e id . W e d e te rm in e d th a t th e p e titio n e rm e r e ly h a d e s tab lis h e d th a t th e F A R C h a d h a r a s s e d h e rd u e to h e rr e f u s a l to c o o p e r a te w i th i t , an d sh e h ad fai l ed t o sh o w actu al o r i m p u t ed p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n , m u ch l ess an y c o n n ec ti o n b etw ee n th e p etit io n er ’s alleg ed p o li ti ca l o p in io n an d th e F A R C ’s al l eged perse cut i on . S ee i d. at43 8. W e, there fore , concl ud ed thatthe pet i t i on er w a s n o t e lig ib le f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. S e e id . C e di e l c ont e nde d i n he rappl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f , a s w e l l a s dur i ng the evi dent i ary hea ri ng , thatm em bers of the F A R C had d ec l ar ed her a “ m i l i t ary obj e c t i ve ” a nd ha d thr e a t e ne d t o ki l l he rbe c a us e s he ha d r e f us e d t o s uppl y the F A R C w ith p e r s o n a l a n d f in a n c ia l in f

o rm a tio n ab o u t c e r ta in B a n c a f e c u s to m e r s .17

H ow ever , as sum i ng for purpo se s of a rgum entthatthese threa t s c on st i tut ed p e r s e c u tio n , in s te a d o f

“is o la te d in c id e n ts o f

v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n ,” s e e S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 , th e p e titio n e r s d id n o t e s tab lis h th a t th is pe r s e c ut i on w a s on a c c ountof m e m be r s hi p i n as oc i a l gr oup ori m put e d opi ni on, s e e A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. C e di e l c onc e de d tha ts he w a s t a r ge t e d ba s e d on a c c e s s t o i nf

orm a t i on a s am a na ge rw i thi n B a nc a f e , notbe c a us e of

a ny m e m b e r s h ip w ith in ap o litic a l o r g a n iz a tio n . A d d itio n a lly , s im ila rto th e f a c ts in S anchez, C edi el al l eged thatm em bers of the F A R C hara ss ed her s ol el y due t o h er f a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e by gi vi ng the m i nf orm a t i on, w hi c h w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove thatshe qual i fi ed for a sy l um . S ee S anchez, 39 2 F . 3d at43 8. T hu s, the pet i t i on er s di d n otpres ent“ spec i fi c, det ai l ed fa ct s” thatdem on stra t ed pastpers ec ut i on base d on a prot ec t ed fa ct or. F urtherm ore, the pet i t i on er s f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e, i n the al t ernat i ve, a f uture threa tt o thei r l i fe or fr ee do m i n C ol om bi a, base d o n a prot ec t ed fa ct or. A s the IJ no t ed, the l as tal l eged threa tagai nstC edi el ’ s l i fe occurre d i n M ay20 00 , m ore than thr e e y e a r s be f

or e the pe t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i ons f orr e l i e f f r om r e m ova l w e r e de ni e d. B ecau se C ed i el l efth er em p l o ym en tw i th B an cafe i n A p ri l 1 9 9 8 , sh e n o w al so w oul d be unabl e t o c oope r a t e w i th the F A R C by gi vi ng the m i nf orm a t i on about B a n c a f e c u s to m e r s .18

T o the ext entC edi el i s a rgui ng thatthe B IA i gn ored do cum ent ary e vi dence in th e r e c o r d r e la tin g to c o u n try c o n d itio n s in C o lo m b ia , th e B I A m u s t c o n s id e ra ll e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d by the appl i c a nt s be f or e de c i di ng w he the rt o gr a ntr e l i e f f r om rem o v al . S ee F o rg u e, 4 0 1 F . 3 d at1 2 8 7 . M o reo v er, al th o u g h , u n d er th e “ co u n tryw i de” r equi re m ent , “ i ti s notun re as on abl e t o requi re a r ef ug ee w ho has a n i nt ernal r e s e ttle m e n t a lte rn a tiv e in h is o w n c o u n try to . . . e s tab lis h th a t s u c h a n o p tio n is una va i l abl e , ” s e e M a z a r i e gos v. O f f i c e of U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1327 (11th C i r. 20 01 ), w e r ec ent l y dec i ded, af t erexam i ni ng the 19 99 and 2 00 0 C ou ntry R eport s f or C ol om bi a, thatthe F A R C op er at es coun try -w i de i n C ol om bi a, and that the gove rnm e nt , the r e f

or e , ha d f

a i l e d t o s how tha tr e l oc a t i on w a s avi abl e opt i on f o rth e p e titio n e r s , w h o m th e B I A p r e s u m e d h a d s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , to e s c ape f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, s e e A rbol e dav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , N o. 04- 13049, m a nus c r i ptop. a t6- 7 ( 11th C i r . J a nua ry 3, 2006) . I n r e a c hi ng thi s de t e rm i na t i on, w e al so cl ari fi ed th at , t o th e ex t en tev i d en ce i n th e 1 9 9 7 P ro fi l e w as co n trad i ct o ry, the m or e r e c e ntC ountry R e por t s w e r e m or e r e l i abl e . S e e A rbol e da , N o. 04- 13049, m a n u s c r ip t o p . a t 9 - 1 0 . U n l i k e th e fact s i n A rb o l ed a, h o w ev er, th e p et i t i o n ers i n th e i n st an tcase fa i l ed t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on . T he pet i t i on er s, i nst ea d o f the go vernm ent , had th e b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g aw e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n th a t w a s b o th s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n do b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le . S e e A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 .19

M o r e o v e r , a s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , th e p e titio n e r s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e y w ill be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed fa ct or. T hu s, a c on tra ry concl usi on i s notcom pel l ed by the evi dence i n the 20 00 C ou ntryR eport . S ee S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1232 n. 7 ( a f f i rm i ng I J ’ s de ni a l of

a s y l um , de s pi t e the i ncl usi on i n the 19 99 and 2 00 0 C ou ntryR eport s f or C ol om bi a thatgu er i l l as e x e r c is e d a n in f

lu e n c e th r o u g h o u t th e c o u n try , b e c a u s e th e p e titio n e rh a d f a ile d to es t abl i sh thatshe w ou l d b e s i ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd ). T he IJ ’ s deni al of as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , there fore , w as su p p o rt ed b y su b st an t i al ev i d en ce. S ee A d efem i , 3 8 6 F . 3 d at1 0 2 7 ; see al so M a z a r ie g o s , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 4 - 2 5 n .2 ( e x p la in in g th a t, “if a n ap p lic a n t is u n ab le to m e e tthe ‘ w e l l - f

ounde d f e a r ’ s t a nda r d f

ora s y l um , he i s ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude d f r om q u a lif y in g f o re ith e ra s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f [ r e m o v a l]” ) . F in a lly , to th e e x te n t th e p e titio n e r s a r e c h a lle n g in g th e d e n ia l o f th e ir ap p lic a tio n s f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e C A T , to b e e n title d to m andat ory w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T , an appl i ca ntm ustes t abl i sh that i ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the ors he w oul d be t or tur e d i f r e m ove d t o the p ro p o sed co u n try o f rem o v al . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2 ). “ T o rtu re” i s d efi n ed as: a n y a c t b y w h ic h s e v e r e p a in o rs u f f e r in g , w h e th e rp h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l, i s i nt e nt i ona l l y i nf

l i c t e d on ape r s on f

ors uc h purpos e s a s obt a i ni ng f r om hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on i nf orm a t i on orac onf

e s s i on, pu ni shi ng hi m or her f

or an acthe or she or a thi rd pers on has c om m i tt e d ori s s us pe c t e d orha vi ng c om m i tt e d, ori nt i m i da t i ng or c oe r c i ng hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on, orf ora ny r e a s on ba s e d on20

di s c r i m i na t i on of

a ny ki nd, w he n s uc h pa i n ors uf f e r i ng i s i nf

l i c t e d by o ra t th e in s tig a tio n o f

o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f ap u b lic o ffi ci al o r o th er p erso n act i n g i n an o ffi ci al cap aci ty. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) .

“ T or tur e i s a n e xtr e m e f orm of c rue l a nd i nhum a n tr e a tm e nta nd doe s not i ncl ud e l es se r f

orm s of c ruel , i nh um an or degradi ng tre atm entor pu ni shm entthat do no tam ou ntt o t orture. ” 8 U . S . C . § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 2). W e a l so has c on cl ud ed that the bur de n of

pr oof f ora n appl i c a nts e e ki ng w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T , lik e th a t f

o ra n ap p lic a n t s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A , is hi gh erthan the bu rden i m po se d o n an asy l um appl i ca nt . A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 1303- 04. T hus , i f

ape t i t i one rf

a i l s t o de m ons tr a t e a“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on” s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta n a s y l um c l a i m , he ors he l i ke w i s e c a nnot d e m o n s tr a te “to r tu r e ” s u f f ic ie n t to w a rr a n t r e lie f

u n d e rth e C A T . I d . B e c a us e the pe t i t i one r s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e a“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pers ec ut i on , ” they c anno tm ee tthe hi gh erbu rden of dem on stra t i ng “ t orture” suff i ci entt o w arra ntC A T re l i ef . S ee i d. R egar dl es s, even i f the pet i t i on er s es t abl i shed that , up on thei r r eturn t o C ol om bi a, they w i l l suff er“ an extre m e f

orm of cruel and i nh um an tre atm ent ” by m em bers of the F A R C , they di d n otal l ege that they w i l l be t ortured by a “ pu bl i c off i ci al or other pers on ac t i ng i n an o ff i ci al c apa c i ty . ” S e e 8 C . F . R . § 208. 18( a ) ( 1) . T he B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe21

pet i t i on er s w er e notel i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T , there fore , w a s s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . A cc o rd in g ly, w e c o n clu d e th at su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s det erm i nat i on thatthe pet i t i on er s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty f or ei ther as yl um or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A , or for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unde rthe C A T . W e , the r e f or e , de ny the pe t i t i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.