### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 25, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1618 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y N os. A 78- 352- 110 &A 78- 352- 111 OLGA LU CIA BUITRAGO CASTRO, JI MENA BRAVO BUITRAGO, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 25 , 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Olg a L ucia B uitrag o Castro is the primary applicant; her

daughter wa s a der ivative 1 a pp lic ant but the n su

bmi tte d he r own a

pp lic atio n up on re a c hin g the a g e of ma jor ity . B uit

ra g o’ s c a se was c onsolidated with her da ug hter’s, a

nd we r efe r to Buitra g o and her claims for r elief. 2 Olga L ucia Buitrago Castro (B uitrago) and Jim ena Bravo Buitrago (Jim ena) pe tit ionthi s C ourt f

or r ev ie wof

the Bure auof

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( BI A ’ s) decision den y ing th eir application for asy lum and withholdi ng of rem oval und er the I m m igr at ionand N at ion al ity A ct ( IN A ) an d th e U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, I nhum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or Punis hm en t ( CA T ). P et iti one rs arg ue the BI Ae rr ed in fi ndi ng the y

ha d no t es ta bli she d pa st p er se cu tio n or aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, and i n de ny ing the m

CA T r el ie f. W e de ny

the pe tit ion . 1 I. BACKGROUND Bu itr ag o, ana tiv e an d c iti ze n of Co lom bia , e nte re d th e U nit ed

S ta te s on Fe br uary 26, 200 0, a s anon im

m igr an t vi sit or . S he sub se que ntl y sub m itt ed

ac la im for asy lum

and withholdi ng of rem oval, alleging persecution on account of her polit ical opinio n and m em bership in a particular social group. T o supp lem ent her ap pli catio n, Bu itr ag o su

bm itt ed se ve ra l ne w spa

pe r ar tic le s de sc ri bin g th e kidn apping and subs equent release of two of her uncles from their far m by an ar m ed gue ri lla gr oup, the Re vol uti onary A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lum bia ( FA RC ). S he subm itted affidavits confirm ing th at Buitrago wa s the niece of the kidnaped m en3

an d th e fam ily

ha d r ec ei ve d num er ous thr eats f ro m the F A RC . B uitra go a lso subm itt ed an a ff idavit f ro m he r fathe r, G uil le rm o B uitra go H urta do ( H urta do) , in which he stated he had dedicated his life to politics, “ without ever having had problem s of any

sort, nor threats due to th e act of being a polit ician.” He further stated he had worked to suppo rt the presidential cam paign of Alvaro U ribe V elez (Uri be ), and the F A RC gue ri lla s ha d de cl ar ed pol iti ca l pe rs ec uti on a ga ins t a ll pol iti ca l l ea de rs sup portin g U ri be . A cc or din g to H urta do, he r ec ei ve d in sul tin g te le phon e ca lls not if

y ing him of a tte m pts a ga ins t hi s li fe and h is f am ily , and specifically

rem indin g him

that he had a daughter and granddaug hter in the United St at es . At a hearing on Buitrago’s a sy lum application, conducted in Novem ber 2002 , Bu itr ag o te sti fi ed

she w as a fr ai d to r et

ur n to Co lom

bia be ca use of pr ev iou s difficulties with the FA RC. A ccording to Buitrago, after the FA RC kidnapped her unc le s in199 7, the f

am ily pa id a r an som of $25 0, 000 ea chf

or the ir r et ur n. S he testified that, one y ear later, the FA RC threatened her m other, a sking for m oney an d c attle . S he f

urthe r te sti fi ed

he r fathe r al so h ad

pr obl em s w iththe F A RC due to h is w ork insup port of

U ri be ’ s pr es ide nti al c an did ac y . B uitra go s ta te d th at , pr ior to his inv olv em en t, he r fathe r ha d ne ve r ha d any m aj or dif fi cu lti es due to his4

polit ical participation. S he testified she personally rec eived calls from

the FA RC i n h e r o f f i c e an da th o me o v e r

af o u r - ye ar p e r i o d , a s k i n g h e r

f o r mo n e y. On cr oss-exam ination , B uitrago testified that no one in her fam ily had been harm ed since her uncles w ere kidn aped. S he further te stified she was never ac tiv el y inv olv ed in he r fathe r’ s po lit ic s. I n r es pons e to a que sti on f

ro m the I J, Bu itr ag o st at ed

the e le ct ion s ha d pa sse d, and Uri be w as the ne wpr es ide nt. A cc or din g to Bu itr ag o, he r fathe r w as nowr et ir ed f ro m pol iti cs . S he state d th e FA RC ha d ki dna

ppe d and c ur

re ntl y w as hol din g ar et ir ed

pol iti ci an , w ho w as a co nte m por ar y of he r fathe r, to ex ch an ge him f or the ir ow n po lit ic al pr iso ne rs . T he I J f ound Bu itr ag o’ s te sti m ony

c re dib le . H ow ev er , the I J f ound the FA RC ’ s de m an ds f

or m one y , kidna

ppi ng, and r an som

w er e cl earl y

r el at ed to its ef fo rt s to f und its a ct ivi tie s r athe r than a s an e ff ort t o punis h th e fam ily

f or it s pe rc ei ve d po lit ic s. T he I J thus f ound the se thr eats w er e not

pa st p er se cu tio n, and did no t establish a well-f

ound ed fear of per secution in the future. T he IJ further fo und the a ct ivi tie s of

Bu itr ag o’ s f

athe r in s uppo rt

of U ri be ’ s c am

pa ign es ta bli she d no pa st p er se cu tio n no r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, be ca use ( 1) the thr eats m ad e in the la st m onths o f the c am pa ignw er e m ad e to any an d a ll ide nti fi ed

sup porte rs , ( 2) the f

athe r’ s in vol ve m en t w as li m ite d, and ( 3) his invo lvem ent had ended because the cam paign was now over. T he IJ noted there5

w as no e vid en ce in the r ec or d th at any U ri be sup porte rs have be enthr eate ne d or h ar m edfo l l o wi n g Ur i b e’s v i ct o ry. Th e I J fo u n dth e k i dn ap p i n g o f H u rt ad o ’s co nte m por ar y w as an e ff

ort t o m ak e ane xc hange f or F A RC m em

be rs in cu sto dy of the gov er

nm en t, r athe r than punis hm en t f or apol iti ca l op ini on. T he re fo re , the IJc onc lud ed

Bu itr ag o ha d no t e sta

bli she d sh e qua lif

ie d a s ar ef

uge e unde r the asy lum statute. T he IJ further

found Buitrago failed to m eet the higher standard ne ce ssary to showe lig ibi lity

f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. A cc or din g to the I J, Buitrago was not eligible for relief under the CAT because she had not sho wn that an tic ipate d to rt

ur e w oul d be a t the hands of the gov er

nm en t or w iththe ac qui es ce nc e an d f

or eknow le dge of

the gov er

nm en t. T he I J a lso f

ound the gove rn m en t’ s in ab ili ty

to co ntr ol a

non -g ove rn m en ta l e nti ty w as not aba sis f or re lie f unde r the c onve nti on. Bu itr ag o a

ppe al ed to the BI A , w hic h sum

m ar ily a ff irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n, pur suant t o 8 C . F. R. § 10 03. 1( e) (4 ). T his pe tit ionf or r ev ie wf oll ow ed . II. DISCUSS ION O n a ppe al , Bu itr ag o arg ue s th e IJe rr ed in de ny ing he r re que st f

or a sy lum an d w ith hol din g of

r em ova l be ca

use she e sta

bli she d pa st p er se cu tio n and a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on d

ue to the kidna

pin g, hara ssm en t, int im idatio n, and d eath o f he r fam ily m em be rs . S he c ont en ds the pe rs ec uti on b y6

the FA RC w as on the basis o f her m em bership in a particular social group—her nuclear fam ily

—as we ll as the politi cal opinion im puted to her fam ily

based on her fat he r’s po li ti cal care er an d s up po rt o f Urib e’s pr es id en ti al can di da cy . Furtherm ore, she argues the IJ er red in stating th at, to obt ain CAT relief , she w as re qui re d to sho wthat the gov er nm en t of fi ci al s have spe ci fi c know le dge of the a ct s constitu ting to rture. Whe n th e B IA d o es n o tre n d eri t s o wn o p i n i o n b u tra th erad o p t s th e I J ’s op in io n, t he n we r ev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n. D- Muhumed v. United States Attorney G en . , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 818 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . L eg al de te rm inatio ns are r ev ie w ed de no vo . Id . at 817. Fa ctual determ ination s are r eviewe d und er the substantial evidence test, and we m

ust affirm the decision if it is “ supp orted by rea sonable, subs tantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id . at 817–1 8 (quotatio n om itted). A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or as y lum . 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ). T he A tto rn ey G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t as y lu m if t he ali en m eet s t he de fin it io n o f a “ refu ge e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 ). A

“ re fu ge e” is: any pe rs on who i s ou tsi de any c ountry of suc h pe rs on’ s natio na lity

. . . w ho i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to ava il him se lf

or he rs el f of

the pr ote ct ionof

, that c ountry

be ca use of7

persecution or a we ll-founded fear of per secution on account of rac e, re lig ion , na tio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or pol iti ca l op ini on. 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The a sy lum

applicant carr ies the burden of provin g statuto ry “ refugee” st atus . D-

Muhumed , 388 F. 3d at 818 . An alien is entitled to asy lum if he can es ta bli sh, w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce : ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of his m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup or oth er statut or ily -l ist ed

f ac tor , or (2) a “ we ll-founded fear” his m em bership in a particular social group or other st atut or il y -li st edfact orwil l ca us e fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b ). A

“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” of f uture pe rs ec uti on m ay

be e sta bli she d by

sho w ing ( 1) pa st persecution which creates a presum ption of a w ell-founded fear and overcom es any rebuttal by

the IN S, (2) a reasonable possib ility of personal persecution that cannot be a voi de d by

r el oc at ing w ith in the sub j ec t c ountry , or

( 3) apa tte rnor practice in the sub

j ect country

of persec uting m em

bers of a statutorily -defined gr oup of w hic h th e al ie n is apart . 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (1 ), ( 2) . T he “ w el lfo unde d f ear” inquir

y ha s bo th a

sub j ec tiv e an d ob

j ec tiv e co m

pone nt— that i s, the ap pli cant m

ust sho wthat hi s f

ear of pe rs ec uti on i s su

bj ec tiv el y ge nui ne and ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e. A l N ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 257 F. 3d 12 62, 1289 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). T he sub

j ec tiv e co m

pone nt i s ge ne ra lly

sa tis fi ed by the appl ic an t’ s c re dib le8

te st im on y he ge nu in el y

fear s p ers ecu ti on . Id

. “ Inm ost

c as es , the obj ec tiv e pr ong can be f ulf ill ed e ith er by e sta bli shi ng p as t pe rs ec uti on o r that he ha s agoo d r ea son to fear future persec ution .” Id . (quotation om itted). T o qu al if y f or a sy lum ba se d onpe rs ec uti on b y

ague ri lla

gr oup on a cc ount of apol iti ca l op ini on, the appl ic an t m ust e sta bli sh the gue ri lla s pe rs ec ute d he r or will seek to persec ute her in the future be ca use of her ac tual or im

puted po litical op in io n. IN

S v . E lia s- Za ca ria s , 112 S . Ct . 812 , 816 ( 1992 ); Sanchez v. U nited Sta tes A tto rne

y G en . , 392 F . 3d 4 34, 437 –38 (1 1thCi r 2004 ). “ It is not e noug h to showthat sh e w as or

w ill be pe rs ec ute d or

tor tur ed due to he r re fu sa l t o c oope rate with the guerillas.” Sanchez , 392 F . 3d at 43 8. T he appl ic an t m ust a lso e sta bli sh a ca usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e pol iti ca l op ini on and the f eare d pe rs ec uti on, pr es en tin g “ spe ci fi c, de ta ile d f ac ts s how ing agoo d r ea son to f ear that [ she ] w ill be sin gle d ou t

for per secution on account of such an opin ion.” A l N ajj ar , 257 F. 3d at 1287 (quotation om itted).

“ Whe re an a

ppl ic an t i s un ab le to m ee t the ‘ w el l- fo unde d f ear’ standard

f or as y lum , he is ge ne ra lly

pr ec lud ed

f ro m qua lif y ing f or e ith er a sy lum or w ith hol din g of deportation.” Id

. at 1292– 93 (quot ation om itted). “ The burden of proof f or an applicant seeking withholdin g of rem oval und er the [ CAT ] , like that for an9

ap pli cant s ee kin g w ith hol din g of r em ova l un de r the statut e, is hig he r than th e burden im

posed on an asy lum

applicant.” Id

. a t 13 03. E ve n a ssum ing argu en do Buitrago’ s status as a m em ber of her nuclear fam ily pla ce d he r in a

pr ote ct ed

soc ia l gr oup, she ha s f

ai le d to sho wpa st pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on o n th at gr ound be ca use the actions of the FAR C ar e re lated to their fundraising activit ies and efforts to get its m em be rs r el ea se d f

ro m pr iso n. A s to Bu itr ag o’ s c la im of pe rs ec uti on o n ac co u n to f i m

p u t edp o l i t i ca l o p i n i o n , s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e I J ’s fi ndi ng the F A RC ’ s ki dna ppi ng o f Bu itr ag o’ s un cl es and s ubse que nt h ar as sm en t of the f am ily , oth er

than th e ca lls r eg ar din g U ri be , w er e int en de d to r ai se f unds rat he r th an to pu ni sh Bu it rag o’s fa m il y forit s i m pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n. See E lia s- Za ca ria s , 112 S . Ct . a t 81 5–16 ; Sanchez , 392 F. 3d at 438 . Buitrago testified the FA RC re leased her uncles af ter the fam ily

paid a ransom , and the calls to her and her m other asked for m oney and cattle. Substantial evid ence also supports th e IJ’ s finding Buitrago did no t have a we ll-founded fear of f

uture persecution on th e basis of Hurta do’s political activities, including his sup port of Ur ibe. H urtado stated in hi s affidavit he had ne ve r ha d any

sig nif ic an t pr obl em s a s ar es ult of his pr ior pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s, and Buitrago confirm ed this in h er testim ony . Ther e w as no evidence in the record10

th at an y Ur i b e s up p o rt er s h av e b ee n th re at en edo r h ar m edfo l l o wi n g Ur i b e’s victory , so any

danger fr om

Hurta do’s support of Ur ibe during h is candidacy has p a s s e d . M o r e o v e r , Hu rt a d o h a s r e t i r e df r o m p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i ty. A d d i t i o n a l l y, Buitrago herself testified that the kidnappi ng of Hurtado’ s retired c ontem porary w as an e ff

ort by the F A RC to m ak e ane xc hange f or F A RC m em

be rs in cu sto dy

of the gov er nm en t. T hus, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio n Bu it rag o fa il edto est ab li sh sh e was en ti tl edto asylu m . A l N ajj ar , 257 F. 3d at 1303 . Be ca

use Bu itr ag o w as una

ble to m ee t the low er

standard of pr oof to show that sh e w as qua lif

ie d f or a sy lum , she did

not e sta bli sh tha t sh e w as e nti tle d to either w ithho lding of rem oval or CAT relief , both of which have a

higher burden of pro of . III. CONCLUSION Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th e FA RC ’ s de m an ds for m oney , kidnaping, and ransom we re e fforts to fund its activities rather than pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of Bu itr ag o’ s im

put ed pol iti ca l op ini on o r m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, and thus Bu itr ag o ha s f ai le d to sho wshe is en tit le d to as y lum or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. S inc e she c annot e sta bli sh s he is en tit le d to11

as y lum , the I J di d no t e rr in de te rm ini ng s he is not e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of rem ov al or C AT reli ef, wh ic h re qu ire a hi gh er s ta nd ardof p ro of . Accor di ng ly, we de ny he r pe tit ion . PETITION DENIED.