NOT P 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. 09- 4662

___________ J HO N FREY CU BI DES G OM EZ, 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 of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 093- 491- 762) I m m i gr at i on J udge: D or othyH arbeck

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t11, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J hon Fr eyC ubi des G om ez ( “C ubi des ”) , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derbythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i rm i ng an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l,C u b id e s b e liev e s th a t th e F A R C tar g e ted h is f a th e r b e c a u se h e g a v e a ss ista n c e to 1 p ara m il it aryo rga n izati o n s tha t w ere ag ains t th e F A R C . (A R 2 2 5 -26 . ) 2 and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng re a s o n s , th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .

I. C ubi des ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on i n 2005. H e mar r i ed V er oni ca Cubi des , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, i n 2007. I n 2008, C ubi des w as s erved a N ot i ce t o A ppear( “N T A ”) and pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . C ubi des appea r ed i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs and appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T . In th e a lt ern ati v e, C u b ides so u g h t r eli ef fro m rem o v al i n the f

o rm o f v o lun tary d e p a rtu re . A t h is im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g , C u b id e s te stif ied th a t h e c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s to es cape death thr eat s , har as s m ent , and ext ort i on att empt s bythe Fuer zas A rm adas R e v o lu c io n a ria s d e C o lo m b ia ( “ F A R C ” ), a g u e rilla g ro u p in C o lo m b ia. T h e th re a ts b e g a n in 2 0 0 3 w h e n C u b id e s to o k o v e r h is f a th e r’ s f u e l tr a n s p o rtb u s in e s s a f te r h is d e a th . ( A R 223. ) C ubi des had notbeen i nvol ved w i th hi s father ’ s bus i nes s pr i ort o hi s death, butw as aw ar e thatthe bus i nes s w as a t ar getforguer i l l as : hi s father ’ s truck w as 1 des tr oy ed bya bomb i n 2002 ( A R 227) , he once ans w er ed a t el ephone c al l i n w hi ch he h e a r d th r e a t s d i r e c t e d a th i s f a th e r( AR 2 4 2 ) , a n d h e r e a d a l e t t e rf r o m th e F ARC threat ening his father’ s busi ness and cri t i ci zi ng him for supp ort i ng param i l i t arygroup s. ( A R 228. ) O n anotherocca s i on, C ubi des acc om pani ed hi s fatheron a bus i nes s tr i p andH o w ev er, un b ek n o w n st t o the F A R C , h is fam il yso ld the b u sine ss p ri o r t o h is fathe r’s 2 d ea th to p ayfo r m ed ical ex p en ses. (A R 2 3 2 , 2 4 4 . ) 3 w h en theyreturn ed to the irca r th eyfo u n d itri d d led w ith b u ll et ho les. (A R 2 2 7 . ) In 1996, C ubi des ’ U ncl e A l var o, w ho w as i n the s ame busi nes s , w as as s as s i nat ed i n fr ontof hi s hom e byunknow n as s ai l ant s bel i eved t o be guer i l l as . ( A R 229. ) H ow ever , C ubi des h im se lf w a s s h ield e d f

ro m h is f a th e r’s b u sin e ss d e a lin g s a n d o n lyb e g a n to re c e iv e th re a ts af ter his fa ther’s d ea th. ( A R 2 4 4 . ) T he fi r s tthr eatC ubi des r ece i ved w as fr om an uni dent i fi ed ca l l erw ho t ol d hi m that th e yn e e d e d to k n o w e v e ryth in g a b o u t th e b u sin e ss a n d th a t C u b id e s s h o u ld m e e t w ith th e m . (A R 2 4 4 .) O n tw o su b se q u e n t o c c a sio n s, C u b id e s’ d o o rm a n to ld h im th a t p e o p le had come byas ki ng forhi m w hen he w as notathom e. ( A R 252. ) H e w as al s o fol l ow ed o n h is m o to rc y c le th re e tim e s b ya c a r f u ll o f a rm e d m e n w h o h e b e lie v e d w e re g u e ri lla s . ( A R 261- 67. ) C ubi des t es t i fi ed thatno one el s e i n hi s i m m edi at e fa m i l yw as bother ed by g u e rillas . (A R 2 3 3 .) H e b e liev e s th a t th e F A R C v iew e d C u b id e s a s th e su c c e ss o r to h is father ’ s fuel bus i nes s and ther efor e bec ame t hei rnew t ar get . A nd al though he has not 2 re c e iv e d a n yc o m m u n ica tio n s to in d ica te th a t th e F A R C a re still l o o k in g f o r h im , h e is afr ai d thati f r eturned t o C ol om bi a, the guer i l l as w oul d fi nd hi m and t ortur e hi m for inf o rm ati o n ab o u t his fath er’s b u sine ss. ( A R 2 3 7 -33 9 . ) T he im m i grat i on j ud ge (“I J”) grant ed v olunt arydep arture, bu tden i ed C ub i des’ as y l um and w i thhol di ng cl ai m s , fi ndi ng thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as t i m e- barr ed and furtherm or e thathe had f ai l ed t o m eetthe s t andar d of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval or4

p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T . T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se th e th re a ts C u b id e s te stif ied to w er e unful fi l l ed and di d notr es ul ti n anyphy s i cal harm , theyw er e noti m m i nentor concr et e enough t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164- 65 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he I J furtherconcl uded thatC ubi des fai l ed t o s how thathi s fea rof per s ecut i on bythe FA R C , even i f w el l - founded, w as on acc ountof “mem ber s hi p i n a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(2 )(i )(A ). In p arti cu lar, the I J found thatC ubi des coul d notdemonstr at e per s ecut i on as a mem berof a gr oup of p erso n s v ict im ized b yo rga n ized crim e, be ca u se, “f o r pu rpo ses o f f

ea r of fu ture per s ecut i on” the s oci al gr oup has t o “exi s ti ndepende nt l yof the per s ecut i on s uffe r ed by th e a p p lica n t.” S e e L u k w a g o v . A sh c ro f t, 32 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). N o r c o u ld C ubi des cl ai m per s ecut i on on the bas i s of i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on becaus e the thr eat s he r ece i ved appe ar ed t o be att empt s atext ort i on and ther e w as no evi dence thatanyof the al l eged thr eat s w er e t i ed t o anyexpr es s ed ori m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. See C havarr i a v. G o n z a le s , 4 4 6 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); IN S v . E lia s -Z a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 (1 9 9 2 ). T h u s, C u b id e s c o u ld n o t sh o w a n e x u s b e tw e e n h is f e a r o f h a rm a n d a sta tu to rily pr ot ect ed gr ound. A ccor di ngl y , the I J deni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he I J deni ed C A T p rotec ti o n b ec au se C u b ides d id n o t carryh is bu rde n o f sh o w ing that itw as m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . T he B I A agr eed w i th the I J ’ s concl us i on thatthe thr eat s C ubi des exper i ence d over thi s tw o- y earper i od w er e noti m m i nentorconcr et e, and thus di d notpl ace C ubi des w ith in the sm all ca tego ryo f c ase s w h ere threa ts al o n e e stab li sh p erse cu ti o n . T h e B IA5

al s o found thatC ubi des w as notel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval becaus e he ha d not c a rrie d h is b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g th a t h e w o u ld m o re lik e lyth a n n o t b e p e rse c u ted in C ol om bi a. I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the B I A r el i ed on the fa ctthatm ember s of C ubi des ’ fami l yhave r emai ned i n C ol om bi a unharm ed, and the fa ctthatther e w as no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g th a tth e F ARC h a v e c o n t i n u e d t o l o o k f o rCu b i d e s o rth r e a t e n h i m. T h e BI A a l s o c o n c l u d e d th a tCu b i d e s wa s n o te l i g i b l e f o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T beca us e he ha d notes t abl i s hed thathe w oul d m or e l i kel ythan notbe t ortur ed. T he i ns t ant p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). B ecause the B IA i ssued i t s ow n o pini on , w e revi ew i t s deci si on rather than that of the IJ. See Li , 400 F. 3d at162. H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o the dec i s i on of the I J t o the ext entthat the B I A defe r s t o oradopt s the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at515. Factual fi nd i ng s ar e revi ew ed fo r s ub st anti al evidence an d m ustbe tr eat ed as “co nclusi ve u nles s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” Si oe Tj en W o n g v . A tt'yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c itin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo, “s ubj ectt o es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of d e f e r e n c e . ” Wa n g v . A s h c r o f t , 3 6 8 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 4 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . We w i l l uphol d the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i ons as t o w hetherthe bur den of pr oof w as m eti f they ar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed a s a w h o le. IN S v . E lias -Z a c a ria s, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h e C o u rt w ill re v e rse o n lyC ubi des does notchal l enge the B I A ’ s concl us i on that , becaus e hi s appl i cat i on w as 3 f ile d o u ts id e o f

th e 1 -ye a r f

ilin g d e a d lin e , h e is n o t e lig ib le f o r a s y lu m . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( B ). 6 if th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it. G u o v . A sh c ro f t, 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). III . C ubi des ar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n hol di ng thathe fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den for w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C A T . H e f ir st argu es th at th e B IA 3 err ed i n aff

i rm i ng the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe var i ous thr eat s and ext ort i on att empt s he endur ed fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on becaus e the I J fai l ed t o cons i derthe vi ol ent act s agai ns thi s father ’ s pr operty , hi s uncl e’ s ki l l i ng i n 1996, and the ment al harm he s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the thr eat s . U nful fi l l ed thr eat s “mustbe of a hi ghl yi m m i nentand m enac i ng natur e i n or dert o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. ” Li , 400 F. 3d at164 ( not i ng thateven i n cas es w her e the pet i t i onerhad a f r i end orr el at i ve w ho w as m ur der ed, and the pet i t i oner w a s th re a ten e d w ith a sim ilar f a te, th e se u n f

u lf ill e d th re a ts w e re n o t im m in e n t en o u g h to es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on) . I n thi s cas e, ther e w as no evi dence thatC ubi des w as ever p h y sicall yatt ac k ed o r hu rt , there w as n o ind icati o n that the c all ers e v er a tt em p ted to ca rry outthe thr eat s , and w hi l e he di d s uffe rfr om anxi etyand depr es s i on, hi s condi t i on w as not s ever e enough t o i nt er fer e w i th hi s every dayl i fe. See C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at518 ( expl ai ni ng thatthr eat s cons t i tut i ng per s ecut i on ar e l i m i t ed t o a s m al l cat egoryof ca s es w h e re th e th re a ts a re “ s o m e n a c in g a s to c a u s e s ig n if ic a n t a c tu a l ‘ s u f

f e ri n g o r h a rm ’” ). A l though the I J di d notexpl i ci t l ycons i derw hathad happe ned t o C ubi des ’ fatheror7

u n c le, th e re c o rd a s a w h o le s u p p o rts th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e u n f u lf ill e d th re a ts d ir e c te d a t C u b id e s d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . C ubi des nextar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n uphol di ng the I J ’ s concl us i on thati tw as n o t m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e su b jec ted to f

u tu re p e rse c u tio n if

h e w e re to r e tu rn t o Co l o mb i a . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; s e e a l s o L u k wa g o , 3 2 9 F . 3 d a t1 8 2 . He ar gues thatthe B I A ’ s r el i ance on the fa ctthatC ubi des has fami l ym ember s w ho have r emai ned i n C ol om bi a unharm ed i s w r ong, beca us e hi s fami l ym ember s had no a s s o c ia tio n w ith h is f

a th e r’ s f u e l b u s in e s s a n d a re th e re f o re n o t s im ila rl ys itu a te d to h im . H e su b m it s tha t th e m o re sa li en t qu esti o n w o u ld b e w h ethe r th e p u rch ase r of h is fathe r’s c o m p a n yh a s e x p e rie n c e d su c h th re a ts. N e v e rth e les s, a s C u b id e s a c k n o w led g e s, th e re is n o thing in the rec o rd in d icati n g that an y o n e a sso ciated w ith C u b ides o r his fa ther’s b u sin e ss f

a c e s o n g o in g th re a ts f

ro m g u e rillas . F u rth e rm o re , the B IA a lso b a se d its d e t e rmi n a t i o n o n Cu b i d e s ’ f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e a n yc o mp e l l i n g e v i d e n c e th a tth e F ARC have tr i ed t o tr ack hi m dow n orthr eat en hi m aft erhi s departur e. W hi l e C ubi des pr ovi ded evi dence s how i ng thatFA R C m ember s t ar get i ng par ami l i t arys ym pathi zer s , and ext or t i on b yg u e rillas , are c o u n try -w id e p ro b lem s, h e p ro d u c e d n o e v id e n c e th a t g u e rillas w o u ld targe t him in p arti cu lar or se ek h im o u t fo r pe rsec u ti o n u p o n h is r eturn . T h u s, the B IA ’s concl us i on, thatC ubi des fai l ed t o s us t ai n hi s bur den of s how i ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythanC ubi des al s o ar gues thatthe B I A err ed i n fai l i ng t o exami ne the countrycondi t i ons 4 m o re c lose lyfo r a p att ern o f p erse cu ti o n targe ted to w ard s b u sine ss o w n ers w h o are p erc eive d o r ac tual p ara m il it aryco ll ab o rators. H e f u rth er a rgu es th at bu sine ss o w n ers w ho ar e per cei ved oractual par ami l i t arycol l abor at or s ar e a s oci al gr oup thatm eet s the req u ir em en ts set fo rth b ythe B IA in M att er o f A co sta, 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 -34 (B IA 1985) ( expl ai ni ng that“[p] er s ecut i on on acc ountof m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al g rou p ” re fe rs t o p erse cu ti o n that is directed tow ard “a g rou p o f p erso n s all o f w h o m sh are a comm on, i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i c” thati s “funda m ent al t o thei ri ndi vi dual i dent i t i es or cons ci ence s ”) . T he B I A di d notr eac h the ques t i on of w hetherC ubi des m ethi s bur den of s how i ng thatthe al l eged pe r s ecut i on al l eged w as on acc ountof m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. B eca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s upport s the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatC ubi des di d notes t abl i s h a l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on, l i ke the B I A , w e nee d not addr es s w hetherthatal l eged pe r s ecut i on w as on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. 8 notthathe w oul d be per s ecut ed i f he w er e t o r eturn t o C ol om bi a, i s s upport ed by r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. 4 F in a lly , C u b id e s a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in a f f irm in g th e IJ’ s a n a ly sis o f h is C A T c laim . In o rd e r to b e e lig ib le f o r C A T p ro tec tio n , the p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te that itis m o re li k elythan n o t th at he w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed , an d that the to rtu re w oul d be i nfl i ct ed “byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off

i ci al orotherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 18( a) ( 1) ; s ee T a rra w a llyv . A sh c ro f

t, 33 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e IJ d e n ied C A T re lief in thi s cas e bec aus e s he found thatthe evi dence s upport i ng hi s cl ai m w as “i nconcl us i ve. ” ( A R 189) . T he B I A aff i rm ed. A l though C ubi des ar gues thathi s C A T cl ai m w as not thor oughl yanal y zed ors uppor t ed byci t at i ons t o the r ecor d, C ubi des has noti dent i fi ed an yev iden ce in the rec o rd th at w o u ld co m p el a c o n tr aryresu lt . C u b ides ref ers to c o u n try rep o rt s d o cu m en ti n g ram p an t violen ce an d k il li n g b ythe F A R C an d ag ains t para m il it ary gr oups , butther e i s no evi dence thatthe governm enthas acqui es ced ori s w i l l ful l ybl i nd9

t o thes e eve nt s . N ori s ther e anyevi dence , otherthan hi s ow n t es t i m ony , thatguer i l l as w oul d t ar getC ubi des fort or tur e i f r eturned t o C ol om bi a. T he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s cl ai m forr el i ef unde rthe C A T w as “i nconcl us i ve” i s s upport ed b yth e re c o rd . I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .