FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT AUG 28 , 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- 17058 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 76- 410- 736 P I E R R E A . D A N I E L , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N 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 D 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 28, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , C A R N E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P i e r r e A . D a ni e l , thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

a n or de ri s s ue d by the B urea u o f I m m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om the deni al by the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ( “ I J ” ) of hi s c l a i m f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) . T he B IA concl ud ed thatcoun try cond i t i on s had changed such thatform erant i -m i l i t ar y dem on stra t ors l i ke D ani el w oul d notbe s i ngl e d outf orpe r s e c ut i on. B e c a us e s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s uppor t s thi s c onc l us i on, w e D E N Y the pe t i t i on.

I . B AC KG RO UN D I n S e pt e m be r1993, D a ni e l , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of H a i t i , a r r i ve d i n the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utbei ng prop er l y a dm i t t ed or parol ed. H e had fl ed H ai t i af t er he w a s be a t e n by the m i l i t a r y f oror ga ni z i ng a n a nt i - m i l i t a r y pr ot e s t . I n 1998, he s oughta s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . T he or de rw e c ons i de rw a s i s s ue d by th e B IA in N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 , fo ll o w in g an ap p ea l fro m th e I J’s d en ial o f D an iel’ s appl i ca t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . T he B I A ’ s or de robs e r ve d tha tD a ni e l ’ s pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ha d c om e a tthe h a n d s o f th e H a itia n m ilita r y a n d th a t th e m ilita r y h a d b e e n d is b a n d e d in 1 9 9 5 .Daniel doe s not raise a ny challeng e in his appellatebrief to the denial of his asylum 1 claim as untimely

or to the denial of his claim for relief under CAT. Ac cording ly , he has abandone d these issues. See Sepulve da v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (pe r curiam). 3 T he B IA ac kn ow l edged t hatthere w as st i l l cr i m e a nd vi ol ence i n H ai t i bu tthat th e r e w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h th a t D a n ie l h a d a n o b je c tiv e ly r e a s ona bl e ba s i s t o be l i e ve tha the w oul d be s oughtoutf orf utur e pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on hi s m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l , pol i t i c a l , orr e l i gi ous gr oup. T he B IA concl ud ed thatthere w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd the curre ntcoun try c ondi t i ons w e r e s uc h tha tD a ni e l w oul d m or e l i ke l y tha n notf a c e pe r s e c ut i on or to r tu r e u p o n h is r e tu r n to H a iti. O n app ea l , D ani el ar gu es thatthe B IA er re d i n h ol di ng (1) thatthe evi dence s how e d tha tthe c ountr y c ondi t i ons ha ve c ha nge d i n H a i t i s i nc e he f l e d i n 1993, a n d ( 2 ) th a t, a s a r e s u lt o f th e s e c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s , h e n o lo n g e rh a s a r e a s o n a b le f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n a t th e h a n d s o f th e f o r m e rH a itia n m ilita r y . D a n ie l a ls o a s s e r ts 1 thatthe B IA vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s by t aki ng j ud i ci al no t i ce of al l eged changed con di t i on s i n fi nd i ng thathe w as no tm ore l i kel y than n ott o b e t ortured up on hi s r eturn, w hi l e f ai l i ng t ake not i ce of the ar t i cl es he att ac hed t o h i s B IA bri ef show i ng thatthe form erH ai t i an m i l i t ar y w as cont i nu i ng t o w re ak havo c.The scopeof our a ppellate review is limited to the administrative rec ord on which the 2 IJ ’s orde r of removal is based. 8 U .S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A ); see also In re F edorenko, 19 I . & N . 4 I I . DI S CUS S I ON W he n the B I A i s s ue s a de c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s ” de c i s i on. A l N a j j a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . I n thi s c a s e , the B I A di d note xpr e s s l y a doptthe I J ’ s de c i s i on, i ns t e a d r e l y i ng on i t s ow n r e a s oni ng. T he r e f or e , w e r e vi e w onl y the B IA ’ s dec i si on . “ T o t he ext entthatthe B IA ’ s dec i si on w as base d o n a l egal de t e r m i na t i on, [ our ] r e vi e w i s de novo. ” D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A t t ’ y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T he B IA ’ s f

ac tual det er m i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence t es t , and t hi s C ou rtm ustaf fi rm the B IA ’ s dec i si on s “ i f [ they a re ] supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on t he re cord c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . ” A l N a j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s ti s “ de f e r e nt i a l ” a nd doe s nota l l ow “re- w eig h [in g ] th e e v id en ce fr o m sc ra tch .” M az ar ieg o s v . O ff ice o f U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . “ T o r e ve r s e the

. . . f a c tf i ndi ngs , w e m us tf

i nd tha tthe r e c or d notonl y s uppor t s r e ve r s a l , but com pel s i t . ” M endo za v. U . S . A t t ’ y G en. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). 2Dec . 57, 74 (B IA 1984) (holdingthat it was inappropriate for the B IA to acc ept new e vidence proff ere d by the re spondent that was not bef ore theIJbeca

use the B IA was “ an appe llate body wh os e fu nc tio n [w a s] to re view, no t to c re ate , a re c ord” ). F ur

therm ore , w e c on c lud e that, contra ry to Daniel’s c laim, the evidenc e shows that the B IA, in its decision, did not take judicial notice of thechang ed conditions in Haiti, but instead relied on theevidenc e included in the a dmi nis tr ativ e re c ord. Thus , th e B IA did n ot v iol ateDa nie l’ s d ueproc e ss rights by

re fu sin gto revie w documents that were not include d in the administrative re cord c ompiled by the IJ . See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); In re F edorenko, 19 I . & N . Dec . at 74. 5 T o qua l i f y f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A , a n a l i e n m us ts how tha t , i f r e tur ne d t o hi s c ountr y , “ the a l i e n’ s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d” on a c c ountof

“ r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . “ A n a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d ort or tur e d upon hi s r eturn t o t he coun try i n q uest i on . ” M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at12 87 . If a pet i t i on er i s una bl e t o m e e tthe s t a nda r d of pr oof “ 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 r. . . w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. A l N a

jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2

– 9 3 . W he r e a n a l i e n ha s e s t a bl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on i n hi s c ountr y on a c c ountof a s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound, i ti s pre sum ed thathi s l i fe o r fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened up on re turn t o hi s c ountr y unl e s s the I N S s h o w s by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v i d en ce tha t , a m ong othe rthi ngs , ( 1) the c ountr y ’ s c ondi t i ons ha ve ch an g ed s uc h tha tthe a ppl i c a nt ’ s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d no l onge rbe t hrea t en e d u po n h i s r e mova l ; or( 2) tha tthe a l i e n c ou l d a vo i d a f uture thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom by r e l oc a t i ng t o a nothe rpa r tof the prop osed coun try of re m o v al , and i tw ou l d b e r ea sonabl e t o exp ec t hi m t o do s o.6

M en d o za, 3 2 7 F . 3 d at1 2 8 7 . N ev ert h el ess, ev en an al i en w h o h as n o tsh o w n p ast p e r s e c u tio n m a y s till b e e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l “if

h e c a n d e m o n s tr a te a f utur e thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound i n hi s c ountr y . ” I d. (c i t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2)). A n al i en need no tshow thathe w ou l d b e s i ng l ed outf orpe r s e c ut i on i f

he e s t a bl i s he s tha ti n hi s hom e c ountr y “ the r e i s a pa t t e r n or pr a c t i c e of

pe r s e c ut i on of

a gr oup of

pe r s ons s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d t o [ hi m ] on a c c ount of [a prot ec t ed grou nd ] . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2)(i ). If the threa tof vi ol ence e qua l l y a f

f e c t s a l l pe opl e i n a c ountr y , w i thoutr e ga r d f orthe i rm e m be r s hi p i n a gr oup orc l a s s r e c ogni z e d by the I N A , the n tha tge ne r a l thr e a tof vi ol e nc e “ w i l l not s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on. ” P a l m a - M a z a r i e gos v. G on za l es , 42 8 F . 3d 30 , 37 (1stC i r. 20 05 ). A r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t th e B I A ’s f in d in g o f c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s is supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. W hi l e the evi dence re veal s thatH ai t i suff er s fr om abj ec tpo verty a nd vi ol ence , there i s no i nd i ca t i on thatm em bers of the form er m i l i t a r y w oul d s i ngl e outD a ni e l f orpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s 1993 a nt i - m i l i t a r y a c t i vi t i e s ; tha ti s , the r e i s i ns uf f i c i e nts uppor tf

ora be l i e f

tha tthe thr e a tof vi ol e nc e i s gr e a t e rf

orpe opl e i n D a ni e l ’ s i de nt i f i e d s oc i a l , pol i t i c a l , or re l i gi ou s c l as s. T hu s, D ani el has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatm em bers of the form er7

m ilita r y w ill e n g a g e in a p a tte r n o rp r a c tic e o f ta r g e tin g its c ir c a - 1 9 9 3 o p p o n e n ts o n a c c o u n t o f

a s ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d .

I I I . CONCL US I ON D ani el has pet i t i on ed us t o revi ew the B IA ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om the I J ’ s de ni a l of

hi s c l a i m f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A . T he B IA concl ud ed thatcoun try cond i t i on s had changed such thatform erant i -m i l i t ar y dem on stra t ors w ou l d n otbe si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on . B ec ause subst ant i al evi dence i n t he re cord supp ort s thi s c on cl usi on , w e DE NY the pe t i t i on.