NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0034n.06 F iled: Janu ary 15, 2009 NO. 08-3526 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MARIATERES A F ERNANDEZ -MA RIN, P etitioner , ON AP P EAL FR OM v. BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N MICHAEL B. MUK

ASEY, Attor ney Ge neral, Respondent. ___________________________________________/ BEF ORE: SUH RH EIN RI CH , BA TC HELD ER , SU TTON ; C ir c uitJudg e s. I. Introduction SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Maria Fer nandez-Mar in, a native a

nd citizen of Colombia, seeks re view of a f inal order of re moval. The B oard of I mmigration Appeals (B I A)

acc epted the I mmigration Judge ’s (I J ) fac tual deter mination that Fer

nandez-Mar in was cr edible, but the B I A over

turned the I J ’s dec ision to g rant withholding of re moval afte r conc luding that she failed t o d e m o n s t r a t e e i t h e r

p a s tp e r s e c u t i o no r

a c l e ar p r o b a b i l i ty o f f u tur e p e r s e c u t i o n . B e c a

u s e t h e B IA decision wa s not manifestly contra ry to law, we AF F IRM

. II. Bac kgr ound A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Th e B I A s umm ari zed

the re le va

nt f a c ts a s f oll ow s: The re spondent testified that she wa s a member of the Catholic church a nd the L ibera l party and employ ed [ as a Sy stem Prog ram Analy st] at the Univer sity of San-2-

B ue nave ntu

ra . Sh e te sti fi e d th a t sh e joi ne d th e L ibe ra l pa rt y in 1 99 0 in

or de r t o oppose the g uerillas who had lifted up arms ag ainst the g overnme n t an dwere inv olv e d in

dr ugtr a ff ic kin g , p ara

mil ita ry a c tio ns , and te rr or ism

. She te sti fi e d th a t, thr ou g h th e un ive rs ity , s he be g an w or kin g wi th p oo r c hil dr e n, be g inn ingin 1 99 0, in order to educate them and preve nt the m f rom beingrec ruited by

the g uerillas. She te sti fi e d th a t th e e ve nt t hat pr e c ipi tate d h e r d e pa rt ur e fro m Col omb ia

wa s a threatening phone call she re ceive d on October 23, 2000, from a ma

n who identified himself as being a member of the guerilla g roup, the Revolutionary Armed F orce s of C o l o mb i a ( FA R C ). S h e te s t i fi ed th at th e pe rs o no nth e p h o n e u s edv u l gar l an gu age to the eff ect of, “You [expl etive] whore don’ t go into our se ctions, don’t g o in to the poor childre n, this is my territory .” She testified that she lef t Colom bia on Octobe r 28, 2000, only 5 day s afte r receiving the phone call. The respondent testified that he r colleagues who wor

ked with the childre n also rec eived simil ar phone calls and, to he r knowledg e, none of

them had ever been harmed by the FA RC. S he testified that he r pare nts stil l live in Col ombia. Fernandez-

Marin v. Muk

asey , No. A28 338 183 (B I A Apr. 8, 2008)

.

B. Pr ocedural History Fe rnande z-Marin was admitted to the United States on Octobe r 28, 2000, pursua nt to a B- 2 visitor’s visa, which authoriz ed her stay until April 27, 2001. On September 11 or September

20, 2002, Fe rnande z-Marin filed for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I mmigra t i o n and Natur a lizatio n A c t ( I

NA ), and pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Conve nti on Ag a ins t To rt ur e (C AT ). On

Ap ri l 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , th e D e p artm e n t o f H o me la n d Se c ur it y is s u e d a N o ti c e to Ap p e ar , c h ar g in g F e r n an d e zMarin with over staying the period of he r authorized admission. On S eptember 6, 2005, Fe rnande z-Marin appea red before the I mmigration J udg e (I J ). She

conce ded remova

bility and that her

asylum claim was untimely . Thus, she only pursued withholding of re moval under the I

NA and CAT. On August 14, 2006, a fter a merits hear ing on F erna

ndez-Marin’s c laims, the I J issued an ora l decision deny

ing pr otection under

CAT, order ing he r re moved to Co lombia on the char g es conta ined in the Notice to Appe ar, a nd g rantingher r equest for withholding of r emoval under the I NA.-3-

On August 31, 2006, the Gover nment filed Notice of Appe al to the B I A. On Apr il 8, 2008, the BIA issued its de cision sustaining the G overnme nt’s appea l. The B I A ac cepte d the I J ’s fa ctual deter mination that Fe rnande z-Marin was credible, but the BI A overturned the I J ’s decision to gra nt withholding of remova l a fter concluding that she fa iled to demonstrate e ither past per secution or a

c le ar prob abi li ty

of futur e pe rs e c uti on . T he B I A g ra nte d F e rn and e z-M ari n 6 0 d ay s in wh ic h to voluntarily

depar t the United States and, alternatively , order ed her r emoved c onsistent with the I J ’s decision if she f

ailed to voluntarily

depar t. On May 5, 20 08 , F e rn and e z-M ari n a pp e a le d th e B I A’ s d e c isi on to t his Court

. III . A nal ys is A. Standard of

Review Neither party takes issue with the B I A’s con cl u s i o n that Fe rnande z-Marin is cre dible. Th e re fo r e , t h e o n l y

i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o urti s w h e th e r

th e B I A e r

r e d i nd e n yi n g F e r

n an d e z - Ma ri n withholding of r emoval. “When we revie w a de nial of wit hholding of remova l under the I NA, [t] he standard of

revie w re quires us to uphold the BIA’s deter mination ag ainst withholding the re moval of an a lien, unless it is manifestly contra ry to the law.” Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 5 22 F .3 d 6 67 , 6 77 (6 th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). Under this defer ential standar d, this Court “mus t fi n d t h at the evidenc e ‘not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it.’” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 4 5 3 F. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 9 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702- 03 (6th Cir. 2004)). B. Withh oldin g of Rem oval Un d er § 2 41(b)( 3) of the I NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3), an alien may not be remove d to a country if “the a lien’s life or f

ree dom would be threatened in that country beca use of the a lien’s ra ce, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political o p i n i o n . ” 8 U.S.C. §-4-

1231(b)( 3)(A) ; Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2006). To demonstrate elig ibilit y for withholding of r emoval, an a lien must show that there is a c lear probability

that she would be subjec t to persec ution if removed. Fang Huang v. Muk asey , 523 F.3d 640, 651 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). The re g ulations pr ovide that an a lien satisfies the “c lear probability ” standa

rd by

e sta bli sh ingthat “ it i s mo re lik e ly tha n n ot” that th e a lie n w ou ld b e su bje c t to pe rs e c uti on

if

remove d. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 2). Th e B I A h a s in te rp re te d p e rs e c uti on a s “ a ha rm or su ff e ri nginf lic te d u po n a n in div idu a l in order to punish the i ndividual for possessing a be lief or c hara cter istic the entity inflicting the harm seeks to over come.” Martinez v. Muk asey , 2 6 0 F. Ap p ’x 8 3 4 , 8 3 9 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Matter of Ac os ta , 19 I . & N . Dec . 211 (B I A 1985), overruled on othe r grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi , 19 I

. & N. Dec . 439 (B I A 1987)). Per secution consists of “more than a f ew isolated inc idents of ver bal hara ssment or intimi dation, u n ac co mpanied by any phy sical punishment, infliction of harm, or signific ant depr ivation of liberty .” Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 390 ( 6th Cir. 1998). 1. P ast P erse cution The re g ulations gove rning withholding of r emoval provide that if the alien ha s demonstrated past perse cution in the proposed country of re moval, a re buttable pre sumption arises that the alien’ s life or f ree dom will be threate ned in the future if remo ved to that country . 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i). As the BIA held, “[t] he only alleg ed ac t of perse cution the re spondent articulated

wa s o ne ph on e c a ll, wh ic h, e ve n a c c e pti ngtha t it c on ta ine d a

n im pli e d t hrea t, di d not e qu a te to perse cution.” Fe rn an de

z- Ma rin , No. A28 338 183, p. 2. We ag ree . Fe rnande z-Marin argues that cur rent e vents in Colombi a

a n d th e State Depa

rtment’s Country Report support the pre sumption t hat she would be in gr ave da ng er if remove d. Whil e her evidenc e-5-

demonst ra t es gene ralized violence in Colom bia, Fe rnande z-Marin has not provided a ny evidenc e other than the phone call that she would be single d out or targ eted. Circuit pr ece dent is settled that an individual may

not rely solely on general desc riptions of upheava l to satisfy the “c lear probabili ty ” standa

rd for perse cution. Se e, e .g ., Liti , 4 11 F .3 d at 63 9- 41 ; Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F .3 d 6 35 , 6 39 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Y ou sif v . I NS , 7 9 4 F

. 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 2 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 8 6 )

. B e c a

u s e F e r n an d e zMarin has f

ailed to establish past per secution, she is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption of future pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)( i). 2. F uture P erse cution Ev e n th ou g h F e rn and e z-M ari n fa ile d to de mon str a te pa st p e rs e c uti on , s he may de mon str a te

a thr e a t o f f

u tu r e p e r s e c u ti o n b y e s ta

b li s h in g th a t “ it is mo r e li k e ly th an n o t” th a t she would be perse cuted on a ccount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a p articula r social g roup, or po lit ic a l op ini on up on re mov a l. 8 C.F .R. § 12 08 .1 6( b) (2 ). Th e B I A he ld that Fernan dez -M ari n failed to de monstrate a c lear probability

of future perse cution in Colom bia. Ag ain, we a g ree . Fe rnande z-Marin argues that she ha d met her bur den of proving a clea r proba bility of future perse cution based on he r imputed political opinion and relig ious convictions. I n support, she cites

sever al fa cts in the rec ord, including her te stimony that FARC continues to re cruit childre n and tar g et those who attempt to thwart those e ffor ts; FARC h ad m u rd er ed a L ibera l party candidate and a

n Arc hbishop of the C atholic church after she left t he country ; and FARC had kidnaped membe rs of

a g r o u p s u p p o rt i n g t h o s e w h o r

u nf o r c an d i d a c y. Th e re c or d e vid e nc e , h ow e ve r, do e s no t de mon str a te that F e rn and e z-M ari n w ill “ mor e lik e ly than not” be pe rsec uted if re moved. As F erna ndez-Marin testified, none of her cowor kers, including those who had r ece ived similar phone ca lls, has been injure d or harme d by the FA RC in t he eig ht-6-

y ear s since re ceivingthe phone c alls, despite their c ontinuing wor k with the children. A nd her pare nts, who still l i v e i n C o lombia, have not bee n threatened or harme d. Thus, the B I A’s deter mination was not manifestly contra ry to law. IV. Conclusion For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the B I A dec ision dated April 8, 2008.