NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3291

___________ J .P .S ., a /k /a S .J .P ., Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 99- 473- 409) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 17, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 22, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J . P. S. , a C ol om bi an ci t i zen, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ’ s ( “ BI A” ) d e c i s i o n a f f i rmi n g th e d e n i a l o f

h i s ap p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m, w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and prot ect i on un der the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainstJ . P. S. has notchal l enged, befor e the B I A orthi s C ourt , the I m m i gr at i on 1 J u d g e ’s d e n ia l o f

h is C A T c la im . “ F A R C is a lef

tist g u e rilla o rg a n iza tio n th a t o rig in a llyw a s e sta b lish e dto 2 s erve as the mi l i t aryw i ng of the C ol om bi an C om m uni s tParty . ” Tapi er o de O r ej uel a v. G o n z a les , 4 2 3 F .3 d6 6 6 , 6 6 8 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e re F A R C e x e rc ise s c o n tro l, i t “in eff ectdi s pl ace s ci vi l governm ent . E ven w her e FA R C does notful l ydi s pl ace the ci vi l i an g o v ern m en t, itn ev erthe less o p era tes w ith o u t [sic] i m p u n ityas a resu lto f a reign o f terro r. . . .” Id . 2 T o rtu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 I. J.P .S . en ter e dth e U n ited S tate s in A u g u st 2 0 0 6 a n dw a s im m e d iate lytak e n in to cus t ody . A n as y l um offi cerdet erm i ned thathe had acr edi bl e fe arof per s ecut i on and r el eas ed hi m on bond t o pur s ue hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and p ro te c tio n u n d e r th e C A T . A t h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s, J.P .S . cla im e dth a t h e h a db e e n p e rse c u ted d u e to h is hom os exual i tybythe C ol om bi an pol i ce and Fuezas A rm adas R evol uci onar i as de Co l o mb i a ( “ F ARC” ) . He t e s t i f i e dth a t , i n 2 0 0 4 , d ru g d e a l e r s a s s o c i a t e dwi th F ARC 2 m o v e din to h is M e d e lli n n e ig h b o rh o o d , an dth a t af terid e n tify in g h im a s a h o m o se x u a l, theyverbal l yhar as s ed and thr ew s t ones athi m . I n ear l y2005, J . P. S. ’ s br other , R uben, in f o rm e dth e M e d e lli n p o lice th a t F A R C h a din f iltra ted th e n e ig h b o rh o o da n dth a t it s m em b ers w ere d ea li n g d rug s. J. P . S . test ifi ed that R u b en inf o rm ed o n F A R C in an ef fo rt t o s t o p th e m f

r o m h a r a s s i n g h i m. F AR C m e mb e r s i n s t e a ds h o tRub e n t o d e a th . T wo w ee k s lat er, J. P . S . ’s sec o n db roth er, L u is, d run k en lyco n fro n ted F A R C m em b ers3

r egar di ng the murde rof R uben and thei rhar as s m entof J . P. S. FA R C m ember s r es ponded byki l l i ng L ui s . A ft erL ui s ’ s m ur der , FA R C m ember s began thr eat eni ng J . P. S. bys t at i ng, “fa ggot , faggot , w hathappene d t o y ourbr otheri s goi ng t o happen t o y ou, ” and thatthey w e re g o in g to “ p u t a s tic kin [ h is ] b e h in d .” M eanw hi l e, i n ear l y2005, aft ergather i ng i n a publ i c park know n fort ol er ance of hom os exual i ty , J . P. S. and s ever al fr i ends w er e t aken i nt o pol i ce c us t ody . J . P. S. t es t i fi ed th a t h e w a s h e lda t th e p o lice sta tio n f o r ap p ro x im a telytw e lv e h o u rs a n dw a s v e rb a lly abus ed forbei ng gay— the pol i ce s t at ed thatthey“di dn’ tw antt o s ee the fa ggot s ” and that they“had t o cl ean thei rnei ghborhoods . ” The pol i ce a l s o thr ew col d w at eron hi m and f o rc e dh im to sit in w e t clo th e s. B e f o re h e w a s re lea se d , h e w a s to ldth a t if h e o r h is f rie n d s s p o k e o u t ab o u t w h a t h a dh ap p e n e d , the yw e re th e o n e s w h o “ w e re g o in g to s u f f e r.” I n D ece m ber2005, J . P. S. m oved t o B ogot a bec aus e the s i tuat i on i n M edel l i n w as “bec om i ng unbear abl e. ” H e chos e B ogot a bec aus e a f r i end i n the s ame pr ofes s i on w as abl e t o fi nd w ork ther e. J . P. S. t es t i fi ed thatal though B ogot a w as m or e pr ogr es s i ve than M e d e lli n , itw a s n o t w ith o u t an ti-g a yb ias a n dv io len c e . H e re c o u n ted o n e in sta n c e in w hi ch a f

r i end w as ki l l ed af

t erl eavi ng a di s co w i th a y oung m an. H e al s o as s ert ed thathe w a s f o rc e dto ru n in to d is c o s to a v o id c o n f ro n ta tio n s w ith a n ti- g a yg ro u p s . A ft ers pendi ng one month i n B ogot a, J . P. S. r eturned t o M edel l i n t o help car e for h is m o th e r. In M e d e lli n , the “ a g g re ss io n s” b yF A R C “ in ten sif ied .” T h e yto ldh im th a t if4

he di d notw antt o end up l i ke hi s br other s , he mustei therpaya w eekl yquot a ordeal drugs forthem. I f he c om pl i ed w i th thei rdemands, theyw oul d al l ow hi m t o “be gayand in p e a c e .” W h e n J.P .S . ign o re dth e ir d e m a n d s, F A R C m e m b e rs b e g a n p h y sic a lly a ss a u lti n g h im . F ro m A p ril to A u g u st 2 0 0 6 , J.P .S . w a s a ss a u lted e ig h t-to -te n tim e s w h ile atthe b us st op , w al king t o an d from his ho use, and i n fron tof h i s hou se. T he m ost s er i ous i nci dentoccurr ed atthe doort o hi s hous e w hen FA R C m ember s hi thi m , ki cked hi m i n the s t om ach, and s cr aped hi s hand w i th a r azor . Soon aft erhe w as att acke d atthe b u s s to p , J .P .S . le f

t f o r th e U n ite dS ta te s . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed J . P. S. ’ s r eques t s forr el i ef, concludi ng that the i nci dent s he des cr i bed di d notr i s e t o the l evelof per s ecut i on and thatevi dence of cu rren t cou n tryco n d it ion s u n d erm ined h is cl aim ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e B IA aff i rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed J . P. S. ’ s appea l . A l though the I Jdi d not s peci fi cal l ym ake s uch a f i ndi ng, the B I A as s um ed thatJ . P. S. w as m i s tr eat ed on ac count o f th e p rotec ted g rou n do f h is sex u al orien tat ion , b u t agre ed that J. P . S . ’s ex p erien ce s w ere n o t suf ficien tl ysev ere to co n sti tute p ast p erse cu ti o n . T h e B IA also co n clud ed that the IJ d id n o t err i n fin d ing that J. P . S . fa il ed to d em o n str ate a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. J . P. S. , thr ough couns el , now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l.J . P. S. i ncorr ect l yas s ert s thatthe B I A s ubs t ant i al l yadopt ed and a ffi rm ed the 3 deci s i on of the I Jand thatw e s houl d thus r evi ew the I J ’ s and the B I A ’ s deci s i ons . See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . B ecaus e the B I A di d notdefe rt o the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs oradoptthe I J ’ s opi ni on, w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl y . See A bdul ai v. A s h c ro f t, 2 3 9 F .3 d5 4 2 , 5 4 5 , 5 4 9 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 5 II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , cons i der i ng w hether itis “su p p o rt ed b yrea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an dp rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” B al as ubr amanr i m v. I . N . S. , 143 F. 3d 157, 161 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i tt ed) . T he dec i s i on m us tbe af fi rm ed “unl es s the 3 e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it.” Z u b e d a v . A sh c ro f t, 3 3 3 F . 3 d4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o ti n g A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . A n appl i cantforas y l um has the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s hom e country“bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n [ . ] ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) . P e r s e c u t i o n “ c o n n o t e s e x tr e me beh avior , i ncludi ng threat s t o li fe, con fi nem ent, t orture, and econ om i c res tri ct i on s so s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 2 1 7 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n dc ita tio n o m itte d ). H e re , the B IA a g re e dth a t th e IJ p ro p e rlyd e n ied J.P .S .’s c laim s b e c a u se h isBe c a u s e th e BI A m a d e n o e x p l i c i tf i n d i n g a s t o J . P . S . ’ s c r e d i b i l i ty , we 4 pr ocee d as i f hi s t es t i m onyw er e cr edi bl e. K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F. 3d 231, 235 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 6 exper i ence s di d notr i s e t o the l evelof per s ecut i on. See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 5 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA reli ed , in large p art, o n the lac ko f se v erityo f J.P . S . ’s 4 i nj ur i es . C oncentr at i ng s ol el yon the l ack of s ever e phy s i calharm , how ever , m i ni m i zed th e n a tu re o f

th e s itu a tio n a n dig n o re dm u c h o f th e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g J .P .S .’s c la im . S e e S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 29 0 F .3 d1 6 6 , 1 7 8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (re q u irin g th e B IA to demonstr at e thati thas “r evi ew ed the r ecor d and gr as ped the movant ’ s cl ai m s ) . For e x a m p le, th e B IA d idn o t ac k n o w led g e th a t th e p e o p le w h o p h y sic a llya n dv e rb a lly as s aul t ed J . P. S. had murde r ed tw o of hi s br other s . W hi l e J . P. S. conce ded thatR uben w as ki l l ed bec aus e he r eport ed FA R C ’ s drug deal i ng t o the pol i ce, he t es t i fi ed thatL ui s w as k il led a t l ea st i n p art be ca u se h e tri ed to d ef en dh im . R eg ard less o f w h yJ. P . S . ’s bro thers w e re k ill e d , the ir m u rd e rs m a d e F A R C ’s s u b se q u e n t targ e tin g o f J.P .S . p a rticu lar ly for ebodi ng. T hus , w hen vi ew ed i n a w i dercont ext , FA R C ’ s cons t antthr eat s and r epea t ed phy s i calatt acks on J . P. S.

— even i f theydi d notr es ul ti n l i fe- thr eat eni ng i nj ur i es — m ay r i s e t o the l evelof per s ecut i on. See D e Sant amar i a v. A tt ’ yG en. , 525 F. 3d 999, 1009 ( 11th C i r . 2008) ; cf. V oci v. G onzal es , 409 F. 3d 607, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( s t at i ng that i s ol at ed i nci dent s thatdo notr es ul ti n s er i ous i nj urydo notr i s e t o the l evelof p e rse c u tio n ). T h e B IA ’s f a ilu re to a c k n o w led g e sig n if ica n t as p e c ts o f

J.P .S .’s c laim re n d e rs u s u n ab le to a d e q u a telyto c o n sid e r w h e th e r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts itsW e d o , h o w ev er, co n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s 5 d e c isio n th a t J.P .S .’s d e ten tio n b yth e C o lo m b ian p o lice , in a n do f itse lf , d o e s n o t rise to th e le v e l o f

p e rs e c u tio n . S e e K ib in d a v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 7 7 F .3 d1 1 3 , 1 1 9 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B ecause w e hav e determ i ned that the B IA ’s decis i on regar ding past 6 per s ecut i on i s nots upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e do notcons i deri t s det erm i nat i on a s to J .P .S .’s f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . 7 determ i nati on that J . P . S . fai l ed to est abli sh pastpersecut i on . S ee C hav arr i a v. G on zal es, 4 4 6 F . 3 d5 0 8 , 5 1 7 -18 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r em an d ing af ter de term ining that the B IA ’s m i s char act er i zat i on and under s t at ementof the evi dence es t abl i s hed thati t s deci s i on w as n o t sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce ); C h en v . I. N . S . , 3 5 9 F . 3 d1 2 1 , 1 2 7 -28 (2d C ir . 2004) ; Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at178. 5 Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notadequa t el ycons i der J . P. S. ’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e ther efor e cannotacc ept i t s det erm i nat i on thathe fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr ant 6 J . P. S. ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the B I A ’ s deci s i on, and r emand the ca s e forfurther p ro c e e d in g s .