FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 6, 2008 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. 07- 12339 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 95- 263- 330 O F I R A L I R I O B A R R E R A , P e titio n e r , 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

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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 6, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T 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:B arre ra a ba ndon e d h is C ATc laim b y no t arguingit o n a

pp e al, s o w ewi ll n ot add

re ss 1 this claim. S ee Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[w] hen an appellant f

ails to offer

argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned.”) . 2 O f i r A l i r i o B a rr e r a , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a s e e ks r e vi e w of t he B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp eal s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on, a f f i r m i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de ro f re m ova l a nd de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i ty Ac t( “ I NA ” ) , I NA §§ 208, 241(b )(3 ), 8 U . S . C . §§ U . S . C . § 1158, 1231( b) ( 3) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A g ai n stT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n or D e g r a d i n g Tr e a tme n t o r Pu n i s h me n t ( “ CA T” ) , 8 U . S. C. § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 ; 8 C . F . R. § 208. 16( c ) . O n appe a l , B arrera a r gue s tha tw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the de ni a l of h i s asy l um appl i c a t i on a s t i m e - ba rr e d a nd t o c ons i de rw he the rhe m e tone of the except i on s t o the on e- ye arfi l i ng deadl i ne. H e a l so ar gu es th at the B IA erre d by f i ndi ng tha the f

ai l e d t o s how tha the w a s a vi c t i m of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on by the N at i on al L i bera t i on A rm y ( “ E L N ”) or thathe had a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on. A f

t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on as t o the a s y lu m c la im , a n d d e n y th e p e titio n a s to th e c la im f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. 1 W e have j uri sdi ct i on t o d et erm i ne w hether j uri sdi ct i on exi st s. S osaM a r tin e z v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e c ons i de rde novo the i s s ue of w he the rw e ha ve s u bj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. A m ay a- A rtun du aga v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 3 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 06 ).3

A n a s y l um appl i c a t i o n m us tbe “ f i l e d w i thi n [ one ] y e a ra f t e rthe da t e of

the a l i e n ’ s a rr i v a l i n th e U n i t e d St a t e s . ” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1 15 8(a) (2)( B ). A n u nt i m el y app l i ca t i on “ m ay be con si dere d . . . i f the al i en de m ons tr a t e s t o the s a t i s f a c t i on o f t h e A tt orne y G e ne r a l e i the rthe e xi s t e nc e of c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t the appl i c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i t y f or a s y l um ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the de l a y i n f i l i ng a n appl i c a t i on . . . .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . S e c tio n 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) “d iv e s ts [ u s ] o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a d e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie d w ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it o re s tab lis h e d e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld e xc us e hi s unt i m e l y f

i l i ng . ” M e ndoz a v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 20 03 ) . Fu r th e r , we h a v e h e l d th a tth e RE AL I D A c to f 2 0 0 5 , Pu b . L. N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( “R E A L I D A c t” ) , d o e s n o tc h a n g e th is c onc l us i on. C ha c on- B ot e r o v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 957 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (ex p l a in in g th atw e “ can n o trev i ew th e IJ’ s an d B IA ’ s d en i al o f [p et i t i o n er’ s] a s y l um c l a i m , e ve n c ons i de r i ng the c ha nge s i n the R e a l I D A ct ” b ec a us e “ [ t ] he t i m el i ness of an as yl um appl i ca t i on i s n ota c on st i tut i on al cl ai m or qu es t i on of l aw c o v e r e d b y th e R e a l I D A c t’s c h a n g e s ” ) . P ur s ua ntt o § 1 1 5 8 (a)( 3) , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rB a rr e r a ’ s a r gum e nt thatthe B IA erre d i n d enyi ng hi s a sy l um cl ai m as t i m e- barred . S ee i d. ; M endo za , 327 F . 3 d a t1287. W e a l s o l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w B a rr e r a ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe4

B I A e rr e d, c ons t i tut i o n al l y o r as a m a tt e rof l a w , by f

a i l i ng t o f

i nd the e xi s t e nc e of c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc es t o j u s t i f y the unt i m e l y f

i l i ng. S e e C ha c on- B ot e r o, 427 F . 3d a t 9 5 7 ; M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . T he r e f or e , w e a re c om pe l l e d t o di s m i s s the p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w a s t o Ba rr e r a ’ s c l a i m f o ra s y l u m. W e turn the n t o B a rr e r a ’ s appe a l f r om t h e d en i a l of

hi s appl i c a t i on f

or w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al . B e c a u s e th e B IA d id n o t ex p re ss ly ad o p t th e I J’s r e a s o n i n g i n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n , we r e v i e w o n l y th e B I A’ s d e c i s i o n . S e e Al N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ T o the e xt en ttha tthe B I A ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n a le g a l d e t e r m i n a tio n , [ o u r ] r e v ie w is d e n o v o .” D -M uh um ed v. U . S. A tt ’ y G e n. , 38 8 F. 3d 81 4, 81 7 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 04 ) . W e r e vi ew the B IA ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s und erthe sub stan ti al evi dence t es t , and m ustaf fi rm f i n d i n g s th a t a r e “ s u p p o r t e d b y r e a s o n ab l e , s u b s t a n t i a l , a n d p r o b a t i v e e v i d e nc e on the r e c or d co n si d ered a s a w hol e . ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284 ( quot a t i on om i tt ed). “ T o re vers e afa ctual fi nd i ng by the B IA , [w e] m ustfi nd no ton l y that the e vi de nc e s uppor t s a c ontr a ry c onc l us i on, buttha ti tc om p e l s one . ” A de f e m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc) (quota t i on om i tt ed). W ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l m a y b e g r a n te d if th e a lie n e s tab lis h e s th a t it is m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha t , i f r e turne d t o hi s c ountry , h i s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be th re aten ed on ac coun tof hi s r ac e, re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar social g roup , or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . IN A § 2 41 (b)( 3); 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ).5

T h e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f is o n th e a lie n , a n d h e is e n t i t l e d to w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l if h e c a n e s t abl i s h, w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e : ( 1) a pa s tthr e a tt o l i f e or f r e e dom thr ough pr oof

of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on o n acco u n tof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound; or( 2) a future threa t t o l i fe or fr ee do m i f i t “ i s m ore l i kel y than not ” that th e p ro tect ed gr ound w i l l c a us e f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b )(1) , ( 2) . “ A s how i ng of pastpers ec ut i on cr ea t es a p re sum pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar , subj ec tt o rebut t al by the [gov ern m ent ] . ” S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 31 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). If an al i en doe s note s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, he c a nnotde m ons tr a t e tha thi s “ l i f e orfreed om w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i f the a s y l um of

f i c e rori m m i gr a t i on j udge f i n ds tha tthe ap p lic a n t c o u ld a v o id a f u tu r e th r e a t to h is . . . lif e o rf r e e d o m b y r e l o c a tin g to a n o th e rp a r t o f

th e p r o p o s e d c o u n try o f r e m o v a l a n d , u n d e ra ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , it w ou l d b e r ea sonabl e t o exp ec tthe appl i ca ntt o d o so. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2). T he pe t i t i one r ’ s w e l l - f

oun d ed fear of pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe on a c c ountof one of the s t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f

a c t or s . T o est abl i s h the ne c e s s a ry c a us a l c onne c t i on, the a l i e n m us tpr e s e nt“ s pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s h o w i n g a good r e a s on t o f e a rtha the or s he w i l l be s i ngl ed o ut for per se cut i on on ac coun tof” ast atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or. S e p u l v e d a , 4 0 1 F . 3 d a t1 2 3 1 ( q u o t a t i o n a n d e m p h a s i s o m i tt e d ) . Al th o u g h th e I NA do es no texpres sl y d ef in e “ pers ec ut i on , ” w e have s t at ed that“ pers ec ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n a f e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e nt ori nt i m i d at i o n, ” a nd “ [ m ] e r e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. ” I d.6

( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . “[ E ]v id e n c e th a t e ith e ris c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f p r iv a te v i o l e n c e o rth e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s f a i l u r e t o c o o p e r a t e wi th g u e r i l l a s , o rth a tm e r e l y s h o ws t hata pe r s on ha s be e n the vi c t i m of c r i mi na l a c t i vi ty , do e s no tc on s t i tut e e vi de nce o f p e r s e c u t i o n b a s e d o n a s ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d .” R u iz v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 44 0 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ngs tha tB a rr e r a w a s not el i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m o v al b ecause he f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thathe w as ei ther pers ec ut ed i n the paston ac co un tof a s t atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd or w i l l “ m ore l i kel y than n o t” suff

erpers ec ut i on on thi s groun d i n the future. B arre raar gu es that he m e tthi s s t a nda r d, e s t abl i s hi ng pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on, b y p r e s e n tin g e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g th r e a te n in g te le p h o n e c a lls a n d le tte r s h e a n d h is w if e r e c e iv e d , h is in v o lv e m e n t w i th th e L ib e r a l P a r ty , th e d e a th s o f s e v e r a l o f

h is r e l a t i ve s , a nd the c oun t ry c ondi t i ons i n C ol om bi a . A s f orpa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the r e c or d s how s th at B a rr e r a r e c e i ve d thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s a nd l e tt e r s i n the m ai l , b u t h e w as never physi ca l l y harm ed, no r di d the E L N everatt em ptt o carry th ro u g h o n i t s th reat s. T h reat s l i k e th ese al o n e are i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh pe r s e c ut i on. S e e S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231 ( “ m en aci n g t e l e phone c a l l s a nd th r e a ts . . . d o n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n .” ) . M o re o v er, al tho ug h sever al of B arre ra ’ s r el at i ves w er e ki l l ed, the re cord d o es n o tco m p el th e co n cl u si o n th ath i s rel at i v es w ere k i l l ed i n o rd er t o p u n i sh7

B arrera fo r an actu al o r i m p u t ed p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n . E v e n if B arrera co u l d est ab l i sh pers ec ut i on on the basi s of hi s r el at i ves’ death s, he di d n otes t abl i sh the neces sa ry nexu s betw ee n the pe rs ec u ti on and h i s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3). B a rr e r a d i d n o t p rese nta ny e vi de nc e t o s how tha tthe E L N t a r ge t e d hi m be c a us e he w a s a m e m be rof

the L i be r a l P a r ty . R a the r , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the c onc l us i on tha ti tt a r ge t e d hi m f ore xt or t i on b ased o n hi s i nc om e l e ve l , a nd notf or p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n p o litic a l o p in io n . S e e R u iz , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 8 . B e c a us e B a rr e r a di d n o t est abl i s h the ne c e s s a ry ne xus , he a l s o c oul d not show thati t“ i s m ore l i kel y than n ot ” thatthe pro tected grou nd w ou l d cause future pers ec ut i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2). T here fore , there i s s ub st an ti al evi dence to s u p p o r t t h e B I A ’s f

in d in g th a t B a rr e r a d id n o t s u f f e rp a s t p e r s e c u tio n a n d w o u ld no tm ore l i kel y than n otsuff erpers ec ut i on i f r eturned t o C ol om bi a. S ee M en d oza, 327 F . 3d a t1287. A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny B a rr e r a’ s p e t i t i on a s t o the w i thhol di ngo f - r e mo v a l c l a i m. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.