FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 24, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 13320 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 537- 464 & A 95- 537- 465 G L O R I A R O C I O N A R A N J O L O A I Z A , a .k .a . G lo r iaR o c io N a r a n o G o m e z , J A I M E A L B E R T O L O A I Z A Q U I N T E R O , M I L Y J O H A N N A L O A I Z A N A R A N J O , J A I M E A L E J A N D R O L O A I Z A N A R A N J O , 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

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:L oaiza’s husband Quintero and her two children were derivative applicants o nL o aiza’s 1 asylum application and withholding f rom removal. As such, we will refer primarily to L oaiza. 2 G l ori a R oci o N ar anj o L oai za(“ L oai za ”) , her husband , Ja i m e A l bert o L oai za Q ui nt er o (“ Q ui nt er o”), and h ertw o chi l dren, M i l y J oh anna and Jai m e A l ej andro L oa i z aN a r a nj o, thr ough c ouns e l , s e e k r 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 de c i s i on di s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l . W e D E N Y the pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. I . B AC KG RO UN D L oa i z a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , w a s a dm i tt e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s on or ab o u t 1 5 F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 1 , a s an o n im m ig r a n t v is ito rw ith a u th o r iz a tio n to r e m a in un t i l 14 M ay20 01 . T he D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty i ss ued L oai zaa N ot i ce t o Ap p e a r( “ NT A” ) , c h a r g i n g th a ts h e wa s s u b j e c tt o r e m o v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 37 (a )( 1)(B ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ), for r em ai ni ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es for a t i m e l o n g er th an p erm i tt ed . H er fam i l y recei v ed si m i l ar N T A s. O n 6 A pr i l 2002, L oa i z af i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , as w el l as re l i ef un der the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture a n d O th e rC ru e l, I n h u m a n , o rD e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231( b) ( 3) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) , on a c c ountof pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 1 L oai zafe ar ed bei ng subj ec t ed t o t orture i f s he w er e t o return t o C ol om bi a. In her appl i c a t i on, s he i ndi c a t e d tha ts he w a s am e m be rof a n the C ol om bi a n P r e s e rve3

P ol i t i ca l P arty a nd the O za nam D i stri ctC om m un i ty A ct i on B oard. L oai zacl ai m ed thatshe f i l ed her appl i ca t i on m ore than o ne ye araf t erher a rr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es because the fa m i l y hop ed t o return t o C ol om bi a a ft er“ the go vernm entpeac e agre em ent ” w as si gn ed. A R at18 0. In C ol om bi a, L oai zast at ed thatshe w as i nvol ve d i n the “ c om m e r c i a l i z a t i on of be a uty pr oduc t s a nd goods f orhom e l i f

e f or v ar io u s c o m p an ies s u ch as A v o n , L eo n isa, an d Y an v al.” Id . at 1 8 2 . L o aiza ’s hus ba nd, Q ui nt e r o, ha d ade gr e e i n I ndus tr i a l E c onom y a nd w a s i nvol ve d i n the prod uct i on and d i stri bu t i on of ski n car e produ ct s. L oai za ’ s c om m un i ty w ork h ad the c oope r a t i on a nd appr ova l of the C ol om bi a n P r e s e rve P ol i t i c a l P a r ty a nd e n ta ile d tr a in in g ag r o u p o f 2 0 h o u s e w iv e s to s e ll p r o d u c ts o u t o f th e irh o m e . B ec ause of thei r w ork i n the com m un i ty, L oai zacl ai m s thatshe a nd Q ui nt er o began t o rec ei ve threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s f rom gu erri l l as fr om the P op ul ar L i bera t i on A rm y ( “ E P L ”) . L oai zacl ai m s thather troub l es began w hen she i nadv ert ent l y l ea rned that E P L gue rr i l l a s s t or e d the i rw e apons a tagr oup m e m be r ’ s hom e . W he n the s on of the gr oup m e m be rf

ound outtha tL oa i z akne w aboutthe w e apons , he c a l l e d a nd t ol d he rtha tthe pe opl e he w orke d w i th di d notl i ke w i tne s s e s t o the i ra c t i vi t i e s a nd thatthey w ant ed L oai za“ t o l ea ve the ci ty, t el l no on e of thi s a nd di sapp ea r by [ her] o w n m e a n s o re ls e th e y w o u ld d o it th e irw a y .” I d . a t 1 8 4 . A f e w da y s l a t e r , L oa i z aa s s e r t e d tha tam a n w ho i de nt i f i e d hi m s e l f

a s be i ng4

partof the E P L ca l l ed and t ol d h erthatshe had 48 ho urs t o l ea ve the ci ty. L oai za r e c o u n ts th a t s h e a n d h e rf a m ily h a s tily w e n t to M e d e llin to s ta y w ith f r ie n d s . A ft erthree m on ths, w hen they tho ug htthe si tuat i on had cal m ed do w n, L oai za st at ed thatshe a nd her f am i l y r eturned h om e. U po n thei r r eturn h om e, L oai za al l eged that“ there w as no ta s i ng l e daythatpass ed w i tho utthe ca l l s. ” I d. L oai za r e c o u n te d th a t h e rs o n b e c a m e v e ry f r ig h te n e d a f

te rh e a n s w e r e d o n e o f

th e c a lls and h ad t o b e hospi t al i ze d b ec ause he suff er ed an as thm a a tt ac k. S he st at ed that C ol om bi a n a uthor i t i e s w e r e unabl e t o he l p the f a m i l y be c a us e the r e w a s not e nough r e s our c e s t o pr ovi de pr ot e c t i on. L oa i z aa s s e r t e d tha tQ ui nt e r o l e f tthe c o u n try a lo n e b e c a u s e th e th r e a ts b e c a m e m o r e f r e q u e n t. A f

te rQ u in te r o le f

t, L oa i z abe l i e ve d the thr e a tha d di s s i pa t e d butthe c a l l s s t a r t e d a ga i n a tthe e nd of 20 00 , and the fa m i l y dec i ded t o g o the U ni t ed S t at es atthe begi nn i ng of 20 01 for a fe w m on ths t o al l ow the si tuat i on t o i m prov e. L oai zacl ai m ed thatshe a nd her f a m ily w e r e to ld th a t if

th e y r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia , th e y w o u ld b e k ille d . A tthe as yl um hear i ng before the Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) , L oai zaappeare d w i th c ouns e l a nd s t a t e d tha ts he a dm i tt e d the f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons c ont a i ne d i n the N T A a nd c onc e de d r e m ovabi l i ty . T he c our tde s i gna t e d C ol om bi aa s the c ountry of rem o v al . T h e IJ t o l d L o ai za th atsh e w as p ro b ab l y n o tel i g i b l e fo r asyl u m b ecau se she f i l ed her appl i ca t i on m ore than o ne ye araf t ershe a rr i ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es an d d i d n o tap p ear t o fal l i n t o an y o f th e ex cep t i o n s.5

W hen the heari ng cont i nu ed, L oai zam ade s ever al corr ec t i on s t o d at es s pe c i f i e d i n he rs uppl e m e nt . T he I J i nt e rrupt e d the t e s t i m ony num e r ous t i m e s a nd as ked severa l qu es t i on s. B ef ore the heari ng w as com pl et ed, the IJas ked w hether there w as anythi ng further f rom ei ther s i de, t o w hi ch they r epl i ed, “ [n] o, Judg e. ” I d . a t 1 4 6 . I n h i s w r i tt e n o r d e r , th e I J d e n i e d Lo a i z a ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n d C A T r e lie f . I n h is o r a l d e c is io n , th e I J s ta te d , “[ t]h is is as clo se to fr iv [o ]l o u s a s I w an t t o g et, w ith o u t j u m p in g th ro u g h th e ice . I d o n ’t be l i e ve aw or d s he s a i d. A nd I don’ tbe l i e ve aw or d he s a i d. A nd thi s c a s e ha s got s o m a n y h o le s , I c o u ld d r iv e th r e e tru c k s th r o u g h th e m .” I d . a t 5 7 . A c c o r d in g to th e I J , L o a iz a ’s a lle g e d p e r s e c u to r s w e r e “th e s tu p id e s t g u e rr illa s o n th e p la n e t . . . [ w ho ha d] be e n t oo l ong i n az oo . . . [ a nd ha d] the pa t i e nc e of s a i nt s ” be c a us e the gu erri l l as cont i nu ed t o w arn h ert i m e a nd t i m e a gai n b utnever t oo k any ov ert st eps, despi t e kno w i ng L oai za ’ s w here abou t s a tal l t i m es . Id. at58 . T he IJ ’ s ora l d eci si o n i s rep l et e w i th si m i l arl y-t o n ed st at em en t s. S e e , e . g. , i d. a t63- 64 ( “ W ho know s w ha thappe ne d t o the br othe r - i n- l a w . W ho c a r e s ? I t ’ s a nc i e nthi s t ory . Y ou k n o w , w h er e is th er e a n ec es sa rily co n n ec ti o n . T h at’s w h at sh e s ay s. I d o n ’t bel i eve i t . It ’ s notsupp ort ed. Itdo es n’ tm ake a ny se nse. W hy di dn ’ tthe gu erri l l as t el l her thatthe fi rs tt i m e? ”) . T h e I J d e te rm in e d th a t L o a iz a ’s “k ille re v id e n c e ,” w h ic h in c lu d e dd o c u m e n ts s h e r e q u e s te d in th e y e a r2 0 0 2 , w a s e ith e rf r a u d u le n tly6

or un truthful l y pre pare d b ec ause the l ett er s w er e dat ed fr om the ye ar20 00 . Id. at 58, 60. T he I J c onc l ude d tha tL oa i z a ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s i nt e rna l l y i nc ons i s t e nt be c a us e s he f

i r s ts t a t e d tha tthe thr e a t e ni ng c a l l s c a m e f r om uni de nt i f

i e d c a l l e r s but th e n l a t e ra tt e mp t e d t o c h a n g e h e rt e s t i mo n y b y a l l e g i n g th a ta l l o f th e c a l l s c a me fr o m g u er rill as . T h e I J f o u n d th at th er e w as n o ev id en ce th at th e b ro th er -in -law ’s de a th i n 1991 w a s c onne c t e d t o L oa i z a ’ s thr e a t s . U l t i m a t e l y , the I J s t a t e d: I j u std o n ’ tfi n d th em cred i b l e. I’ v e g o n e th ro u g h al l o f th e reaso n s, in c lu d in g th e d o c u m e n ta tio n w h ic h ju s t s m e lls b a d , to p u t it b lu n tly . T he i rs t or i e s don’ tj i ve . T he y don’ tm a ke a ny s e ns e . I f the y ha d a r e a l f e a r , the y w oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng abouti t . T he y t ook no ac t i on . B oth o f them ar e outof t i m e. I f i nd thatnei ther one are e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um . T he appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng, w i thhol di ng unde r[ C A T ] a r e de ni e d. Id. at66 -67. T he IJordered L oai zaand h erfa m i l y r em ov ed t o C ol om bi a. L oai zafi l ed a not i ce of appeal i n w hi ch she c l ai m ed thatthe IJcom m i tt ed r e v e r s ib le e rr o rb y f

in d in g th a t L o a iz aw a s n o t p e r s e c u te d . I n th e n o tic e o f ap p e a l, Lo a i z as t a t e d th a ts h e a n d h e rf a mi l y b e g a n t o r e c e i v e d e a th th r e a t s f r o m th e EPL a n d th a t th e y w e r e p e r s e c u te d b e c a u s e o f h e rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . In a p ro se br i e f f i l e d i n s uppor tof

the not i c e of

appe a l , L oa i z aa r gue d the I J e rr e d by f i ndi ng thatshe w as no tent i t l ed t o asy l um . In addi t i on , L oai zast at ed thather c ou nsel w as i ne f f e c t i ve . L oa i z as oughtt o s e ta s i de the r e m ova l or de r“ ba s e d upon [ i ] ne f f e c t i ve coun se l and fearof t orture. ” I d. at16 -17. L oai zaal so com pl ai ned thatthe IJ bel i tt l ed her and spentm ore t i m e per sonal l y a tt ac ki ng her a nd do w np l ay i ng her7

f e a ro f h a rm th a n try in g to h e lp h e r . T he B I A di s m i s s e d L oa i z a ’ s appe a l . T he B I A f ound tha tL oa i z aw a s not el i gi bl e f or as yl um because s he di d n otappl y w i thi n o ne ye arof her a rr i val and h ad nots how n c ha nge d c ondi t i ons ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s f orhe rde l a y . T he B I A a l s o f

ound tha tthe r e w a s ac l e a rba s i s t o f i nd L oa i z ai nc r e di bl e “ [ i ] n l i ghtof th e d is c r e p a n c ie s a n d c o n tr a d ic tio n s e v id e n t in th e r e c o r d .” I d . T h e B I A b a s e d its cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on on the fol l ow i ng : (1) L oai zahad t es t i fi ed thatQ ui nt er o w a s i nvol ve d i n the pr om ot i on of the c os m e t i c s a nd a c c om pa ni e d he rt o gr oup me e t i n g s , b u tQ u i n t e r o h a d t e s t i f i e d th a th e w a s o n l y i n v o l v e d i n s p o r t s p r o g r a ms f o rc h ild r e n ; ( 2 ) L o a iz ah a d in d ic a te d o n h e rap p lic a tio n th a t s h e o n ly liv e d in P e r e ir aa n d S a n taR o s aa f te rJ a n u a ry 1 9 9 9 , b u t s h e h a d la te rte s tif ie d to liv in g in a ddi t i ona l pl a c e s ; ( 3) L oa i z aha d notpr ovi de d a ny e vi de nc e tha tthe E P L ha d the capabi l i ty of pursui ng her c ou ntry -w i de; and (4) L oai zahad n otcl ar i fi ed w hy her tw o s uppor tl e tt e r s , w hi c h w e r e r e que s t e d i n 2002, w e r e both da t e d i n 2000. T he B IA concl ud ed thatL oai zahad n otshow n thatthe cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on w as c l e a r l y e rr one ous , e ve n though othe rdi s c r e pa nc i e s the I J not e d w oul d notha ve s uppor t e d a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng. T h e B I A w e n t f

u r th e ra n d s ta te d th a t, r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rth e r e c o r d c o u ld s u p p o r t a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility ru lin g , L o a iz a“[ h a d ] n o t s h o w n h a rm a m o u n tin g to pastpers ec ut i on or a c ou ntry -w i de prob abi l i ty of f uture pers ec ut i on ” bec ause :8

( 1) thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s a l one di d notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, ( 2) the de a th of

he rbr othe r - i n- l a w i n 1991 w a s notr e l a t e d t o he rs i tua t i on, a nd ( 3 ) L o a iz ad id n o t s h o w th a t th e E P L w o u ld s till b e in te r e s te d in f in d in g h e rto d a y . I d . I n a d d itio n , th e e v id e n c e d id n o t e s tab lis h th a t it w a s m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t th a t L oa i z aw oul d be s ubj e c t e d t o t or tur e by orw i th the a c qui e s c e nc e of the g o v e rn m e n t o f

C o lo m b ia . I n af

o o tn o te , th e B I A a d m o n is h e d th e I J ’s to n e in h is or a l de c i s i on, f

i ndi ng i t“ i nappr opr i a t e ” a nd bor de r i ng on the “ unpr of e s s i ona l , ” a nd not i ng hi s “ a c e rbi c a nd c y ni c a l c om m e nt a ry . ” I d. a t4 n. 3. T he B I A f ound tha tthe IJ w as im p atien t at th e h ea rin g , b u t th at th er e w as n o ev id en ce th at th e I J’s b eh av i o r d ep ri v ed L o ai za o f “ a fai r h eari n g o r o th erw i se co n st i tu t ed a d u e p ro cess vi ol a t i on. ” I d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he P e t i t i one r s a r gue on appe a l tha tthe I J ’ s be ha vi ora tthe a s y l um he a r i ng vi ol at ed thei r due process ri gh t s. W e r evi ew an as yl um appl i ca nt ’ s c on st i tut i on al chal l enges de nov o. L on ye m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 35 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 41 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ T ]h e F if th A m e n d m e n t e n title s a lie n s to due pr oc e s s of

l a w i n de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs . ” R e no v. F l or e s , 507 U . S . 292, 30 6, 11 3 S . C t . 14 39 , 14 49 (199 3) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). “ D ue process i s s at i sf i ed on l y by aful l and fai r hea ri ng . ” I brahi m v. IN S , 82 1 F . 2d 15 47 , 15 50 (11th C i r. 19 87 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T o p re vai l on a due process chal l enge, ho w ever , an al i en9

m u s t s h o w s u b s ta n tia l p r e ju d ic e . I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A n a lie n c a n d e m o n s tr a te subst ant i al prej ud i ce by show i ng thatthe ou t com e w ou l d h ave been di ff er enthad the due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on notoc c urr e d. I d. H e r e , w e f

i nd tha tP e t i t i one r s w e r e notde ni e d due pr oc e s s . W hi l e i ti s true tha tthe I J i nt e rrupt e d L oa i z a ’ s t e s t i m ony on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons , ar e vi e w of the re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe pu rpose of m ostof the i nt errupt i on s w as t o g ai n m ore cl ari fi cat i o n w i th reg ard t o L o ai za’ s an d Q u i n t ero ’ s t est i m o n y. M o v eo v er, th e v ast m aj ori ty of the IJ ’ s i nt errupt i on s a nd qu es t i on s w er e probat i ve as t o the i ss ues r a i s e d by P e t i t i one r s . M a ny othe ri nt e rrupt i ons w e r e due t o m i s c om m uni c a t i ons i nv ol vi ng the i nt erpret er . P et i t i on erdo es no tpo i ntt o any i nst ance s i n the re cord w h ere sh e w as su b st an t i al l y p rev en t ed fro m t est i fyi n g as t o h er st o ry. W hi l e i ti s true tha tthe I J appe a r e d i m pa t i e nta nd a nnoy e d by s om e of L oai za ’ s a nd Q ui nt er o’ s r es po nses and m ade s om e unn ec es sa ryand u np rofe ss i on al com m ent s a tthe heari ng and i n h i s ora l deci si on , P et i t i on er s have notshow n that the out c om e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nti n the abs e nc e of

thos e c om m e nt s a nd i nt e rrupt i ons . S e e I br a hi m , 821 F . 2d a t1550; s e e a l s o L i t e ky v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 510 U .S . 5 4 0 , 5 5 6 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 7 - 5 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( f in d in g th a t ju d g e ’s c o n d u c t, w h ic h c o n s is te d o f

q u e s tio n in g o f

w itn e s s e s , c u ttin g o f

f te s tim o n yr e le v a n t to defe nd ant ’ s s t at e of m i nd , and al l eged “ ant i -def endantt on e, ” w as an ordi nary ef fortatcourtroom adm i ni stra t i on because i t“ occurre d i n the course of j ud i ci al10

pr oc e e di ngs , a nd ne i the r( 1) r e l i e d upon know l e dge out s i de s uc h pr oc e e di ngs nor ( 2 ) d is p la y e d d e e p - s e a te d a n d u n e q u iv o c a l a n ta g o n is m th a t w o u ld r e n d e rf a ir j udgm e nti m pos s i bl e ” ( quot a t i ons a nd e m pha s i s om i tt e d) ) . I n f a c t , the B I A f

ound tha tthe r e c or d s uppor t e d the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty rul i ng. M or e ove r , e ve n i n the abse nce of an advers e c re di bi l i ty rul i ng , P et i t i on er s di d n otshow thatthey w er e subj ec t ed t o p as tpers ec ut i on , a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , or that the y w e r e e nt i t l e d t o C A T r e l i e f , be c a us e the “ pe r s e c ut i on” the y c om pl a i ne d of c ons i s t e d onl y of

thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s . P e t i t i one r s do notc ha l l e nge the m e r its o f th o s e ru lin g s . F u r th e r , th e B I A a d m o n is h e d th e I J f o rh is unpr of e s s i ona l i s m a nd hi s c y ni c a l a nd a c e rbi c t one . T he r e f or e , P e t i t i one r s ha ve no tdem on stra t ed subst ant i al prej ud i ce . I I I . CONCL US I ON Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.