FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 8, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 72 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 98 -7 39 -3 03 JAI LOK LING, Peti ti on er,
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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 0)

Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja i Lo k Li ng , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof M al ay si a, pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t he

Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA’s) fi na l o rd er af firm in g the Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ’s) de ni al of a sylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um anor Deg rad in g Tre at m en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (C AT), 8 U.S.C. § § 1 15 8, 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). Lin g c on te nd s t he BIA’s de ci si on de nyin g h is cla im for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C AT reli ef i s n otsupp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. 1 Afte r rev ie w, we den y

Lin g’s p et it io n. 2 Lin g c on te nd s h e was ha rm edin Mal ay si a b ecau se of h is m em be rs hi p i n a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up —b us in es s o wne rs owi ng m on ey to lo ansh ark s. He s et s fo rth vario us reas on s wh y th is gro up is co gn iz ab le as apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up . Co ns eque nt ly, he arg ue s, h e h as est ab li sh edth e p as t h arm he su ffer edha d ane xu s to a pr ot ect edgro un d. Lin g fu rth er co nt en ds th athe is en ti tl edto CAT rel ie f
In his brief to this Court, L ing doe s not challeng e the de nial of his asylum claim, and 1 has thus abandone d it. See Se pulveda v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“ When an appe llant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned.”)
. We reviewonly

the B IA’s dec ision as the final judg ment, but to the ext ent the B IA has 2 adopted the I J ’s re asoning , we r eview the I J ’s dec ision as well. Al-Najjar v. Ashcroft , 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We revie w the I J ’s and the B IA’s fa ctual dete rminations under the highly defe rential substantial-e vidence test and will aff irm if the dec ision “is supported by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the rec ord consider ed as a whole.” Kazemzadeh v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 577 F.3d 1341, 1350- 51 (11th Cir. 2009). Underthe substantialevidenc e test, we may

reve rse a findingof fa ct “only

when the r ecor d compels a r ever sal; the mere fac t that the rec ord may support a contr ary

conclusion is not enough to justi fy a re versa l of the administrative finding s.” Adefem i v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 ( 11th Cir. 2004). We revie w the I J ’s and the B IA’s leg al conc lusions de novo. Kazemzadeh , 577 F.3d at 1350. 2be cau se th e h arm he wou lden co un te r wou ldco ns ti tu te to rtu re b y th e Ma la y si an go ve rn m en t o r atth e acqui es cen ce t he reo f. 3 I. To qua li fy

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al , an a li enm us t s ho w th at , if re tu rn ed to hi s co un try, the ali en ’s li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edonacco un t o f a pr ot ect edgro un d, n am el y , race, re li gi on , nat io na li ty, 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A). An a li enm ay m ak e
su ch a sh owi ng in on e o f two way s. “ Fi rs t, an ali enm ay est ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti on in [hi s] cou nt ry

ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d.” Ta n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen

. , 44 6 F .3d 13 69 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Suc h p as t p ers ecu ti oncrea te s a reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n t ha t t he ali enha s a “ well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on .” Id. (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Seco nd , an a li encan sh ow t ha t “ itis m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ” th athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d up on return t o h is co un try. Id. (qu ot in g 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (2 )).

L ing a cknowledg es the B IA issued its decision solely on the lack of

a nexus to a 3 protec ted ground. Howe ver, he addre sses other issues “ [i ]n t he eve nt this C ourt deter mines it has jurisdiction” to reviewthem. Her e, the B IA agree d with the I J ’s conc lusion that L ing w as ineligible f

or withholding of

remova l beca

use L ing “ has not established a nexus between his experience s in Malay sia and a n enumer ated ground,” a

nd expressly

adopted the I J ’s re asons for reje ctingL ing’ s proposed socia l group. The B IA also dec ided L ing f ailed to establish elig ibilit y for CAT pr otection. Ther efor e, werevie w only the I J ’s and the B IA’s findingthat L ing did not establish membership in a pa rticular soc ial group and its conc lusion that L ing doe s not qualify for CAT r elief. See A l-Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1284. 3Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r pe rs ecu ti on is ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d,

sp eci fic al ly a part ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up , we hav e d eferredto th e BIA’s fo ll owi ng in te rp ret at io n: ‘[P] ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup’ . . . m ean [s ] pe rs ecu ti on th atis di rect edto ward an in di vi du al who is a m em be r of a gr oup of pe rs on s al l of who m sh are a co m m on , imm

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c. The sh ared ch arac te ris ti c m ig ht be an in na te on e su ch as se x, co lo r, or ki ns hi p ti es , or in so m e ci rcu m st an ces it m ig ht be a sh ared pa st ex pe rie nc e su ch as fo rm er m il it ary le ad ers hi p or la nd own ers hi p. The pa rti cu la r ki ndof g ro up ch arac te ris ti c th atwil l qua li fy un de r th is co ns tru ct io n r e mai n s to be de te rm in ed on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s. Howev er, wh at ev er the co m m on ch arac te ris ti c th atde fin es th e g ro up , it m us t be on e th at th e m em

be rs of t he gro up eit he r can no t ch an ge , o r sh ou ld no t b e r e qu ire d to ch an ge be cau se it is fu nd am en ta l to th ei r in di vi du al id en ti ti es or c on sc ie nc es . Mat te r o f Aco sta , 19 I. & N. Dec. 21 1, 2 33 (BIA 1 98 5) , ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Ma tt er of Mogha rr ab i , 19 I. & N. Dec. 43 9, 4 46 -4 7 (B IA 19 87 ); se e al so Ca st il lo -Ari as v. U.S. Att ’y Gen

. , 44 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (d eferrin g t o t he BIA’s Aco st a fo rm ul at io n o f a “pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up ”). Fu rth erm or e, th e g ro up m us t h av e su ffi ci en t s oc ia l v is ib il it y an d s ho ul d n otbe de fin edso bro ad ly tha t i t b eco m es “ a cat ch -al l fo r al l g ro up s wh o m ig htcla im pe rs ecu ti on .” Ca st il lo -Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 7- 98 . For e xa m pl e, in Ca st il lo

Ari as , we hel d n on -cri m in al in fo rm an ts work in g a ga in sta Co lo m bi andru g c art el
were n ota parti cu la r so ci al gro up be cau se th ey lac ke d t he requi si te so ci al vi si bi li ty, th e g ro up was t oo nu m ero us an d i nc ho at e, an d the gro up ’s def in in g 4at tri bu te was i ts pe rs ecu ti on by the cart el
. Id. at11 97 -9 9; se e a ls o In re A-M- E &

J-G-U- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 69 , 75 -7 6 (B IA 20 07 ) (h ol di ng “ affl ue ntGuat em al an s”
are n ota pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up be cau se th ey lac k s oc ia l v is ib il it y , bei ng no m or e
ex po se d t o v io le nc e th anot he r m em be rs of s oc ie ty, an d a ls o l ackparti cu la rit y , si nc e th e te rm

“ affl ue nt ” is “ to o a m or

ph ou s t o p ro vi de anad equa te be nc hm arkfor de te rm in in g g ro up m em

be rs hi p” ). Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e co nc lu si on th atLin g fa il edto est ab li sh pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . Bein g aform er bu si ne ss own er wh o o wes m on ey to lo ansh ark s i s n otanin na te , imm ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c o r a s ha redpa stexpe rie nc e. Se e Aco st a , 19 I. & N. Dec. at 2 33 . In fact , su chbu si ne ss own ers are v ery si m il ar t o t he no n- cri m in al in fo rm an ts in Ca st il lo -Ari as , who th is Co urt fo un d n otto co ns ti tu te a parti cu lar so ci al gro up , be cau se bu si ne ss own ers owi ng m on ey to lo ansh ark s l ackso ci al vi si bi li ty, are t oo
nu m ero us an d i nc ho at e, an d t he ir d efi ni ng att rib ut e is pe rs ecu ti onby the lo an sh ark s. Se e Ca st il lo -Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 7- 99
. Sp eci fic al ly, bu si ne ss own ers who owe m on ey to lo ansh ark s d o n oten

joy hi gh so ci al vi si bi li ty becau se lo an s s ha rk s’ act iv it ie s “ te ndto be cri m in al in na tu re
an d a re o fte n c on du ct edsec ret ly.” Se e Ca st il lo -Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 7 (“ [I]nfo rm an ts who rem ai n a no nym ou s ar e n otvi si bl e en ou gh to be co ns id ereda

5‘part ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up ,’ as t he ve ry na tu re o f th e act iv it y

pre ve nt s t he m

fro m be in g re co gn iz edby soc ie ty at la rg e.”). Mo reo ve r, as th e IJ fou nd , bu si ne ss
own ers “ co m e fro m

all seg m en ts of s oc ie ty andare a d iv ers e g ro up .” Thu s, l ik e th e in fo rm an ts in Ca st il lo -Ari as , bu si ne ss own ers who owe m on ey to lo ansh ark s are “ to o n um ero us or i nc ho at e” t o qua li fy fora pa rti cu lar so ci al gro up . Ca st il lo

Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 8. Fi na ll y , th e d efi ni ng attrib ut e o f Lin g’s p ro po se d g ro up is it s p ers ecu ti on by the lo ansh ark s, b utth e “ ris k o f pe rs ecu ti on alo ne do es no t
crea te a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up .” Id

. Lin g p res en te d n o e vi de nc e th e lo ansh ark s
wou ldtre atbu si ne ss own ers “ an y di ffer en tl y

fro m an y othe r pe rs on ” who owed th em m on ey , and“ vi rtu al ly the en ti re p op ul at io n o f [the co un try] is a po te nt ia l
subjec t o f pe rs ecu ti on ” b y th e lo ansh ark s. Id. at 1 19 8. In ot he r wor ds , witho ut th e lo ansh ark s i n t he equa ti on , Lin g’s g ro up of b us in es s o wne rs do es no t h av e a
m or e d efi nabl e tr ai t t ha n a ny oth er cl as s o f ci ti zen s i n M al ay si a, ho wev er de sc rib ed
. Lin g a rg ue s h e can no t ch an ge th e fac t t ha t h e was a bu si ne ss own er an d bo rro wedm on ey

fro m lo ansh ark s. Ho wev er, the same can b e sa idab ou t in fo rm an ts in Ca st il lo -Ari as , who co ul d n otch an ge th e fac t o f th ei r ha vi ng be en in fo rm an ts , y etst il l d idno t qua li fy as apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . Se e Ca st il lo

Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 8. Th eref or e, Lin g fa il edto est ab li sh m em be rs hi p i n a

6pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up an d, co ns eque nt ly, no ne xu s ex is ts be twee n Li ng ’s all eg ed

pe rs ecu ti on an d apro te ct edgro un d. Th us , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d en ia l o f withh ol di ng of r em ov al II. To qua li fy

forCAT pro te ct io n, the pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w th at , “ m or e li ke ly th anno t,” h e wou ldbe to rtu red“ atth e in st ig at io n o f orwit h the co ns en t o r acqui es cen ce o f” g ov ern m en t au th or it ie s i f rem ov edto hi s h om e co un try. Reyes

Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen

. , 36 9 F .3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ti ng 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 )). Unl ik e wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , CAT reli ef d oe s n ot requi re m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up or o th er p ro te ct edgro un d. Se e 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). Lin g o ffer edno ev id en ce t o s ho w he wo ul d b e to rtu redby, orwit h the acqui es cen ce o f, th e g ov ern m en t. At m os t, Lin g’s t es ti m on y an d d oc um en ta ry
ev id en ce s ho w Mal ay si anau th or it ie s h av e tr oubl e co nt ro ll in g t he lo ansh ark s an d
m ay no t re sp on d qui ck ly eno ug h t o c al ls forhe lp . Howev er, thi s C ou rt h as
ex pl ic it ly sug ge st edth atm ere i nabi li ty of th e g ov ern m en t t o d eal wit h a ll eg ed pe rs ecu to rs is no t en ou gh to co ns ti tu te th e “ acqui es cen ce” n eces sa ry for CAT rel ie f. Se e Reyes -S

an ch ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen

. , 36 9 F .3d12 39 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ Tha t t he po li ce d idno t ca tc h t he cu lp rit s d oe s n otm ean th atth ey acqui es cedin

7th e h arm .”). Acco rd in gl y , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d en ia l o f CAT

rel ie f, an d we d en y

Lin g’s p et it io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED .

8