FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 42 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 70 -8 47 -7 90 FRANCIS CO MARTIN-P ABLO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 17 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andBARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fran ci sc o M art in -Pab lo , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Gu at em al a, th ro ug h c ou ns el ,se ek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) o rd er d en y in g h im asylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), INA §§ 20 8, 2 41 , 8 U.S.C. § § 11 58 , 12 31 . Mart in -Pab lo cla im s t ha t h e was pe rs ecu te d i n Gu at em al a – an d wou ldbe ag ai n –

on acco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n. Th e BIA fo un d t ha t M art in
Pab lo fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe was p ers ecu te d i n Gu at em al a b ecau se of h is po li ti cal op in io n o r th athe ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar tha t h e wil l b e p ers ecu te d i n th atco un try. Becau se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in gs , we den y Marti n- Prad o’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. Whe re, as he re, the BIA is su es a de ci si on an d d oe s n otad op t the IJ’s o rd er, we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . To th e ex te ntth atth e BIA’s d eci si on was b as edona le ga l de te rm in at io n, we re vi ew de no vo . Moh amm edv. As hc ro ft, 2 61 F.3d12 44 , 12 47 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The BI A’ s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns are re vi ewedun de r th e subs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e te st ; we “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 3- 84 (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . W e wil l n ot rev ers e a fac tu al fin di ng un le ss “ th e ev id en ce co m pe ls a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Ch env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) 2(quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) .

To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m , an app li can t m us t s ho w th athe su ffer ed pa stpe rs ecu ti on or h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s race , rel ig io n, n at 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 10 1( a)(4 2) (A); Sil vav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 48 F.3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A sh owi ng of p as t p ers ecu ti on crea te s a r eb ut tabl e pr es um pt io n o f a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on ; ab se ntsu cha sh owi ng , anap pl ic an t m

us t p ro ve a subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e fea r of fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Sil va , 44 8 F .3dat 1 23 6. To qu al ify for wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an app li can t m

us t es tabl is h t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athi s l ife or free do m wil l b e th reat en edinth atco un try onacco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A); Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 26 , 12 32 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Turn in g fi rs t t o M art in -Pab lo ’s asylum cl ai m , th e rec or d d oe s n otco m pe l th e co nc lu si on th athe was p ers ecu te d i n Gu at em al a o n a cco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n. Th e o nl y

ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti on was M art in -Pab lo ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g asi ng le in ci de ntwher e g ue rri ll a so ld ie rs pu sh ed , sh ov ed , andth reat en ed hi m aft er h e ref

us edto joi n t he ir r an ks . Giv enth atMart in -Pab lo tes ti fie d t ha t h e was ne ve r de ta in edno r ph y si cal ly harm edby the gu erri ll as , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce 3supp orts th e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t thi s i nc id en t d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f

pe rs ecu ti on . See Dia ll o v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 96 F.3d13 29 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“pe rs ecu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few in ci de nt s o f ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Mo reo ve r, subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t M art in
Pab lo fai le d t o d em on st rat e a n ex us be twee n t hi s s in gl e in st an ce o f al le ge d pe rs ecu ti on an d any pro te ct edgro un d. Ma rti n- Pab lo pre se nt edno ev id en ce co m pe ll in g t he co nc lu si on th atth e g ue ril la s t hr eat en edhi m be cau se of h is po li ti cal op in io n; rathe r, he tes ti fie d t ha t h e ref us edto joi n t he m

be cau se he di d n otwantto le av e h is fam il y . See Ro dr ig ue z Mo ral es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 88 F.3d88 4, 8 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (ho ld in g t ha t i t i s i ns uf fic ie ntforanap pl ic an t t o e st ab li sh th athe was pe rs ecu te d due to hi s re fu sa l t o c oo pe rat e with g ue rri ll as ). Nordo es th e rec or d c om

pe l the co nc lu si on th atMart in -Pab lo ha s a we ll
fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n. “ Dem on strat in g su cha co nn ect io n re qu ire s t he [ap pl ic an t] to pre se ntsp eci fic , det ai le d fa ct s sh owi ng a go odreas on to fearth athe or s he wil l b e si ng le d o utforpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f su chanop in io n.” Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 7 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Mart in -Pab lo pre se nt edno ev id en ce tha t h e o r hi s fa m il y were ev er th reat en edor h arm edinth e two de cad es fol lo win g h is lo ne en co un te r wit h t he 4gu erri ll as , eve n t ho ug h h e rem ai ne d i n Gu at em al a fo r two y ears fol lo win g t hi s

in ci de ntan d v is it edth e co un try for o ne m on th in20 02 . Alth ou gh he tes ti fie d t ha t he fear s re tu rn in g t o Gu at em al a b ecau se of wi de sp readvi ol en ce an d c riminal act iv ity th ere, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n t ha t M art in
Pab lo fai le d t o p ro ve a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . As fo r Marti n- Pab lo ’s withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im , forth e rea so ns st at ed ab ov e, subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in g tha t h e fai le d t o s ho w th at itis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athi s l ife or f reed om wou ldbe th reat en edinGuat em al a on acco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n. Be cau se th is is a m or e st rin ge ntst an da rdth an th e “ well -fo un de d fe ar” s ta nd ardforasylu m cla im s, M art in -Pab lo ’s in ab il it y to es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m pre cl ud es hi m

fro m qu al ifyin g fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al . Moh amm edv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 47 F.3d13 40 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y th is po rti on of M art in -Pab lo ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w. 1 PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED, in pa rt, a nd DENI ED, in p ar t. Martin-Pablo also see ks review of the B IA’s dec ision affirmingthe I J ’s denial of relief 1 under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, Inhumane, a nd DegradingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(c). H oweve r, we lack jurisdiction to review Mar tin-Pablo’s CAT claim bec ause he did not raise it in his brief to the BIA, and ther eby

failed to e x haust his administrative reme dies. See Ama ya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (holdingthat failure to exhaust elim inates appellate jurisdiction, even whe n the B IA sua sponte c onsiders the c laim). Ther efor e, we dismiss this portion of Martin-Pablo’s petition for re view. 5