FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 7, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 10043 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 95- 225- 516 B L A N C A C E C I L I A M A R T I N E Z Q U I N T E R O , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 7, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A , an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Th epetitioner i s re ferre d toin t heB IA’ s f

inal de c isi on , and in t

hec a pti on of thi s a pp e al, 1 a s “ Ma rtine z Quintero ,”without a hy ph en. Ho wever, a

hy ph en isinc lude d in

oth er documents , including in her petition for review. Ac cording ly, throughout this opi nion we re fer to the petitioner as “Ma rtinez-Quintero.” Martinez-Quintero’ s petition is l imited to the issue of whether she wa s entitled to asylum 2 under theI

NA. That is, her petition does not raise a challenge t o th e d en i al of withholdingof removal or protec tion un d er C AT. Therefore, wedo not addre ss those claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 4 0 1 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (statingthat “when an appellant f

ails to offer

an argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned”) . 2 P et i t i on erB l ancaC ec i l i a M art i nez- Q ui nt er o se eks r evi ew of the fi nal 1 de c i s i on of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) , w hi c h a f f i rm e d, w i thout opi ni on, the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) ’ s or de rde ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, Inhu m an, or D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . O n app ea l , M art i nezQ u in te r o c o n te n d s th a t th e B I A e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t s h e f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te h er el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m u n d er sect i o n 2 0 8 o f th e IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 . B ecau se 2 su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s d ec isio n , w e D E N Y M ar ti n ez -Q u in tero ’s p e titio n . I . B AC KG RO UN D M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , w a s a dm i tt e d t o the U n ite d S ta te s o n 2 3 O c to b e r2 0 0 0 , a s an o n - im m ig r a n t B - 2 v is ito rw ith author i z a t i on t o r e m a i n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s unt i l 22 A pr i l 2001. F ol l ow i ng e x p ir a tio n o f

h e rv is a , in M a y o f

2 0 0 1 M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o f ile d a n ap p lic a tio n w ithMartinez-Quintero’ s common-law husba nd, Santiag o Be llo Cl avi

jo (“Clavijo”), a

pplied 3 for relief separately

from Mar

tinez-Quintero. The IJinitially consolid ated the two case s, but the case s were later separated at the asylum hearing . Consequently, the IJrendered a separate de cision for e ach a sylum applicant. See Santiag o Be llo Cl avijo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 07- 10042 (11th Cir. Aug . 13, 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished) ( addre ssing Clavijo’s petition separately ). 3 the f orm e rI N S , s e e ki ng a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd r e lie f u n d e rC A T . M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s appl i c a t i on i ndi c a t e d tha ts he w a s s e e ki ng a s y l um be c aus e s he ha d s uf

f e r e d pe r s e c ut i on by the R e vol ut i ona ry A rm e d F or c e s of C ol om bi a( “ F A R C ” ) on a c c ountof he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on. H e rappl i c a t i on s t a t e d: I a m se eki ng as ylum i n the U ni t ed S t at es du e t o the fa ctthatI f ear I m a y b e k ille d . M y c o m m o n la w h u s b a n d , w h o m I ’v e liv e d w ith 3 s in c e 1 9 9 6 , h a s b e e n th r e a te n [ e d ] a lo n g w ith h is w h o le f a m ily . H is s i s t e r s w e r e brut a l l y m ur de r e d by the F . A . R . C . gue r i l l a s . D ue t o the f a c ttha the w a s a c t i ve l y i nvol ve d w i th the pol i c e i n the i nve s t i ga t i on of hi s s i st er ’ s m urder, hi s l i fe w as i n con st antdang eras w el l as m i n[e] s in c e I w a s k n o w n in o u rc o m m u n ity a s h is w if e , h e w a s c o n s ta n tly be i ng thr e a t e n[ e d] a nd w e r e c e i ve d m a ny thr e a t e ni ng c a l l s a tour re si dence i n w hi ch the ca l l er s w ou l d i dent i fythem se l ves a s m em bers of the F . A . R . C . gu er i l l as . W e are t erri fi ed for our l i ves, the gu er i l l as u s u a lly ta k e o u [ t] th e irv e n g e a n c e o n th o s e th a t a r e c lo s e to th e ir t a r ge ta nd ki l l the m . M y l i f e i s i n j us ta s m uc h da nge ra s m y hus ba nd due t o a l l the thr e a t s a nd the pe r s e c ut i on. A R a t 1 4 4 . I n M a r c h 2 0 0 2 th e f

o rm e rI N S s e rv e dM a r tin e z - Q u in te r o w ith aN o tic e to A ppe a r , c ha r gi ng tha ts he w a s r e m ovabl e pur s ua ntt o s e c t i on 237( a ) ( 1) ( B ) of the I N A , 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) , f o rr e ma i n i n g i n th e U n i t e d St a t e s f o ral o n g e rt i me th an p er m itted . T h e I J h eld a h ea rin g o n b o th M ar ti n ez -Q u in tero ’s an d C lav ij o ’s4

appl i ca t i on s on 1 4 Jul y 200 5. A tthe heari ng , M art i nez- Q ui nt er o con ce ded rem o v ab i l i ty. M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s t e s t i m ony a tthe he a r i ng w a s c ons i s t e ntw i th he ra s y l um ap p lic a tio n , a n d th e I J f o u n d h e rte s tim o n y to b e c r e d ib le . S h e s ta te d th a t, p r io rto c o m in g to th e U n ite d S ta te s , s h e h a d liv e d in C o lo m b iaw ith h e r“c o m p a n io n ,” C l a vi j o. A R a t90. S he t e s t i f i e d tha ts he a nd C l a vi

j o ha d both be l onge d t o the L i be r a l P a r ty i n C ol om bi a , a l though s he ha d notbe e n a n “ a c t i ve ” m e m be ri n the P a r ty . I d . a t 9 3 . M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o te s tif ie d th a t C la v ijo ’s th r e e s is te r s h a d b e e n k ille d in 1 9 9 8 b e c au s e th e y h a d r e c e iv e d ala r g e m o n e ta ry in h e r ita n c e a n d h a d r e f u s e d to pay m on eyt o F A R C gu er i l l as op er at i ng i n the ar ea . S he expl ai ned thatsuch ext ort i on ary pra ct i ce s are fr equent l y e m pl oyed by F A R C op er at i ves, st at i ng that

“ the peop l e w ho have som e w ea l th, w ho have som e m on ey , the [F A R C ] gu er i l l as lo o kf o rth e m b e c au s e , w e ll, th e g u e r illa s liv e f r o m th a t.” I d . a t 9 5 . M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o te s tif ie d th a t, a f

te rth e m u r d e ro f

C la v ijo ’s s is te r s , C la v ijo h ad “ w o rk [ed ] t o fi n d o u tw h o th [e] se p eo p l e w ere” w h o co m m i tt ed th e k i l l i n g s, a n d , b e c au s e h e h a d a s s i s t e d w i th th e g o v e rn me n t ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , FA RC o p erat i v es h ad “ [b eg u n ] t o th reat en h i m an d . . . cal l h i m ath o m e. ” Id . S h e al so s ta te d th a t F A R C o p e r a tiv e s h a d “[ b e g u n ] to p e r s e c u te [ h e r ] b e c au s e [ s h e ] w a s h is w i fe . ” I d. at94 . In addi t i on t o threa t s t o C l avi j o and hers el f, M art i nez- Q ui nt er o5

t e s t i f i e d tha the rdaught e rha d be e n thr e a t e ne d. S he t e s t i f i e d tha ts he w a s f

e a r f ul of r e turni ng t o C ol om bi a , be c aus e s om e of the i ndi vi dua l s w ho ha d be e n s us pe c t e d of c o m m ittin g th e m u r d e r s r e m a in e d f r e e in C o lo m b ia , a n d , th e r e f o r e , C la v ijo a n d h is fa m i l y r em ai ned i n d anger. I n r e s pons e , the gove rnm e nta r gue d tha tM a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s c a s e ha d no

“ ne xus ” t o a ny of

the f i ve s t a tut or i l y e num e r a t e d gr ounds f ore s t abl i s hi ng e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the gove rnm e ntc ont e nde d tha t“ e ve n though i t ’ s ve ry s a d [ tha t ] the thr e e s i s t e r s . . . w e r e a s s a s s i na t e d, ” a nd e ve n though the th r e a ts f r o m F A R C w e r e “d ir e c tly lin k e d to h e rc o m m o n - la w h u s b a n d ’s a tte m p t to i nv es t i gat e w ho or w hy the si st er s w er e ki l l ed, ” i d. at10 0-10 1, M art i nez- Q ui nt er o had n otshow n thatthe pers ec ut i on she and C l avi j o h ad suff

er ed i n C ol om bi a w as

“ 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 apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” S ee IN A § 1 01 (a )( 42 )( A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). T he I J r e nde r e d a n or a l de c i s i on, de ny i ng M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s appl i c a t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef . T he IJfoun d M art i nezQ ui nt e r o’ s t e s t i m ony t o be c r e di bl e , butf ound tha the rc l a i m e d pe r s e c ut i on a tthe ha nds of F A R C ha d notbe e n on a c c ountof as t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound. P ut si m pl y, the IJst at ed thatthere w as “ no evi dence thatthe F A R C gu er i l l a m em bers w e r e in te r e s te d in th e r e s p o n d e n t o rth e c o m m o n - la w h u s b a n d b e c au s e o f h is po l i t i ca l op i ni on or m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or any of the otherTh eIJ als o c on c lude d th at, sin c e Ma rtine z-Quintero had faile d to satisf y thelow er t

hre sh old 4 for e stablishing elig ibility for a sylum, s h e had not satisfied the higher evidentiary threshold for withholding of removal under the I NA. Nor, acc ording to the IJ , h adMartinez-Quintero d em o n s trat ed that itwas “more likely than not that [] she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c )(2) . Acc ording ly, the IJconclude d that she had failed to e stablish her elig ibility for pr o t ec t i o n under CAT. Asno te d p revious ly, n e ith er o f t he se conclusions is before us on appe al, and, therefore, wedo not addre ss them. 6 g r o u n d s . ” A R a t6 0 . Ra th e r , th e I J f o u n d th a tth e th r e a t s a tth e h a n d s o f FA RC h a d o c c u rr e d b e c au s e C la v ijo h a d a tte m p te d to f in d o u t w h o k ille d h is s is te r s . W hi l e the IJi nd i ca t ed thatM art i nez- Q ui nt er o’ s c as e w as un fortun at e, the IJst at ed tha ts he ha d “ f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h aba s i s f ora s y l um i n the s e ns e tha tthe r e w a s no ne xus be tw e e n a ny thi ng tha thappe ne d t o the c om m on- l a w hus ba nd’ s s i s t e r s or fa m i l y [ and] any of the prot ec t ed grou nd s, and al so the threa t s thatshe r ec ei ved w e r e notl i nke d t o a ny pr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” I d. a t60- 61. 4 M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B I A in S e p te m b e r2 0 0 5 . I n he rappe a l , s he a r gue d tha tthe I J ha d e rr e d i n de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f or a s y l um , be c aus e the e vi de nc e s how e d tha ts he ha d e s t abl i s he d pe r s e c ut i on, both on a c c ountof

he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on a nd he rm e m be r s hi p i n as oc i a l gr oup. A s t o the form er , M art i nez- Q ui nt er o d ef i ned h erpo l i t i ca l op i ni on as bei ng a genera l di sa gree m entw i th the F A R C gu er i l l as . A s t o the l att er , she argued thatshe had e s t abl i s he d tha ts he w a s am e m be rof apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup - - - w hi c h s he de f i ne d a s be i ng thos e gr oups of the popul a t i on w ho oppos e d the F A R C a nd r e f u s e d to c o llab o r a te w ith th e m - - - a n d , a c c o r d in g ly , th a t th e I J h a d e rr e d in7

fi nd i ng thatthere w as no nexu s betw ee n h erpers ec ut i on and a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed gr ound. T he B I A a f

f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, w i thoutf ur the ropi ni on. T hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w f

ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S t andard of R evi ew

“ T he approp ri at e s t andard of revi ew i s w el l -s ett l ed. ” M az ar i egos v. O ff i ce of U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 24 1 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W e r evi ew l egal i ss ues de novo, M oha m m e d v. A s hc r of t , 261 F . 3d 1244, 1247 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed), and “ adm i ni stra t i ve fa ctfi nd i ng s und erthe hi gh l y def er ent i al subst ant i al evi dence t es t , ” A defe m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 26 -27 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( en b a n c ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 0 3 5 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 2 4 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . U nde rtha ts t a nda r d, w e “ m us ta f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w hol e . ” A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). “ T o revers e afa ctual fi nd i ng by the B IA , thi s C ou rt m u s t f in d n o t o n ly th a t th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts ac o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n , b u t th a t it com pel s one. ” F ar qu hars on v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 24 6 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 20 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n d e e d , “th e m e r e f a c t th a t th e r e c o r d m a y s u p p o r t a c ontr a ry c onc l us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f y ar e ve r s a l of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve8

fi nd i ng s. ” A defe m i , 38 6 F . 3d at10 27 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). Inst ea d, w e w i l l re vers e a B IA ’ s d en i al o f asyl u m “ o n l y i f th e ev i d en ce p resen t ed b y th e ap p l i can ti s so p o w e r f u l th a t ar e a s o n ab le f

a c t f in d e rw o u ld h a v e to c o n c lu d e ” o th e rw is e . M a z a r ie g o s , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 3 - 2 4 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I n r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d on appe a l , “ [ w ] e r e vi e w onl y the [ B I A ’ s ] de c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha ti te xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t 1 2 8 4 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “I n s o f a ra s th e [ B I A ] a d o p ts th e I J ’s r e a s o n in g , w e w ill re v iew th e I J’s d ec isio n as w ell. ” I d . (citati o n o m itted ). In M ar ti n ez -Q u in tero ’s ca se , the B IA expres sl y a do pt ed the re as on i ng of the IJ ’ s dec i si on , w i tho utfurther c om m e nt . T he r e f

or e , w e r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on a s i f i tw e r e the B I A ’ s . S e e i d. B . M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s E l i gi bi l i ty F orA s y l um S e c t i on 208 of

the I N A pr ovi de s tha t“ [ a ] ny a l i e n w ho i s phy s i c a l l y pr e s e nt in th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . irr e s p e c tiv e o f s u c h a lie n ’s s ta tu s , m a y ap p ly f o ra s y lu m .” I N A § 208( a ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne y G e ne r a l , i n hi s di s c r e t i on, m a y g r a n t a s y lu m to a n a lie n if h e “d e te rm in e s th a t s u c h a lie n is ar e f u g e e w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

s e c tio n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) [ o f th e I N A ].” I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1158( b) ( 1) . A “ r e f

uge e ” i s de f

i ne d i n s e c t i on 101 a s one w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e or un w i l l i ng t o avai l hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, that c ountry be c aus e of

pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof p ersecu t i o n o n acco u n to f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty,9 m e m b e r s h ip in ap a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . . . I N A § 101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntbe a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory “ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus . 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . T o pr ove re fugee s t atus, “ the al i en m ustes t abl i sh a ‘ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ’ thathi s or her [ s t a tut or i l y l i s t e d gr ound] w i l l c aus e ha rm ors uf f e r i ng tha tr i s e s t o the l e ve l of

‘ pers ec ut i on . ’ ” D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 2004) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on om i tt e d) . S uc h aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on m aybe es t abl i shed by show i ng ei ther: (1) pas tpers ec ut i on ; or (2) a‘ w el l -f ou nd ed f e a r ’ o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 0 - 3 1 ( c itin g 8 C .F .R . § 20 8. 13 (a ), (b)) . A l tho ug h the IN A do es no tdefi ne “ pers ec ut i on , ” w e have i nd i ca t ed that

“ pe r s e c 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 af 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 ntori nt i m i da t i on. ” I d. a t1231 ( quot a t i on m a rks , c i t a t i on, a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) . “ N ota l l e xc e pt i ona l tr e a tm e nti s pe r s e c ut i on. ” G onz a l e z v. R eno, 21 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 55 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). F or exam pl e, w e have m ade c l ear thatthrea t eni ng ph on e c al l s c on st i tut e m er e har as sm entand i nt i m i dat i on , and that the y f a i l t o r i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on. S i l vav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 37 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); se e a l so S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 31 (s t at i ng that10

“ m en aci n g t el ep h o n e cal l s an d th reat s . . . d o n o tri se t o th e l ev el o f p ast p e r s e c u tio n th a t w o u ld c o m p e l r e v e r s a l o f th e I J ’s d e c is io n ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In th is ca se , fo ll o w in g th e p o li ce in v es ti g atio n o f th e m u rd ero f C lav ij o ’s si st er s, M art i nez- Q ui nt er o and C l avi j o rec ei ved “ m any threa t eni ng ca l l s a t[thei r] r e s i de nc e ” f

r om pe opl e i de nt i f

y i ng the m s e l ve s a s F A R C ope r a t i ve s . A R a t144; s e e a ls o id . a t 9 5 ( s ta tin g th a t F A R C o p e r a tiv e s “b e g a n to c a ll [ ] a t h o m e ” ) . M art i nez- Q ui nt er o’ s app l i ca t i on and t es t i m on y do n otm ent i on any physi ca l e nc ount e r s w i th F A R C gue r i l l a s ; r a the r , he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on i s l i m i t e d t o the threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s thatshe r ec ei ved p ri or t o fl ee i ng C ol om bi a. S uch e vi de nc e , s t a ndi ng a l one , i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o r i s e t o the l e ve l of “ pe r s e c ut i on” a s our c a s e la w h a s c o n s tru e d th a t te rm . S e e S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 ; s e e a ls o B e llo Cl a v i j o v . U . S. A tt ’ y G e n . , N o . 0 7 - 1 0 0 4 2 ( 1 1 th Ci r . A u g . 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (unp ub l i shed) ( fi nd i ng thatthe threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s c om pl ai ned o f by M art i nezQ ui nt er o’ s c om pani on , C l avi j o, fa i l ed t o ri se t o the l evel of pastpers ec ut i on un der ou r c as e l aw ). B ec ause M art i nez- Q ui nt er o fai l ed t o d em on stra t e thatshe s uffe re d

“ p e r s e c u t i o n ” u n d e rth e I NA , I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) , we d i s c e rn n o e rr o ri n th e d e c i s i o n t o d e n y M a r t i n e z - Q u i n t e r o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o ra s y l u m. M oreover, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the deci si on t o d eny M art i nezQ ui nt er o’ s pet i t i on because s he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh a nexus betw ee n h ercl ai m ed pe r s e c ut i on a nd as t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound. A s the I J not e d, i n or de rt o be11

e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um , the a s y l um appl i c a ntm us t- - - i n a ddi t i on t o de m ons tr a t i ng pe r s e c ut i on - - - e s t abl i s h tha ts uc h pe r s e c ut i on i s “ on a c c ountof ” one of the e n u m e r a te d s ta tu to ry g r o u n d s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ; s e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (B )(i ) (“ T o est ab l i sh th atth e ap p l i can ti s a refu g ee . . . th e ap p l i can tm u st e s t abl i s h tha tr 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 apa r t i c ul ars oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on w a s orw i l l be a tl e a s tone c e ntr a l r e a s on f orpe r s e c ut i ng the ap p l i can t ”); M azari eg o s, 2 4 1 F . 3 d at1 3 2 3 (st at i n g th atth e asyl u m ap p l i can tm u st pr ovi de e vi de nc e tha t“ he w a s m i s tr e a t e d be c aus e of hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, orone of the othe rgr ounds , r a the rtha n f ors om e othe rr e a s on. ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt ed). H e r e , the I J c onc l ude d tha tM a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o ha d note s t abl i s he d ane xus be tw e e n he rc l a i m e d pe r s e c ut i on ( pa s torf utur e ) a nd a ny of

the f i ve gr ounds nece ss ary t o est abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty. S peci fi ca l l y, the IJfoun d “ no evi dence tha tthe F A R C gue r i l l am e m be r s w e r e i nt e r e s t e d i n the r e s ponde nt. . . be c aus e of [hercom m on -l aw hu sband’ s] po l i t i ca l op i ni on or m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al g r o u p o ra n y o f

th e o th e rg r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d f o rag r a n to f

a s y l u m . ” AR a t6 0 . On appe a l , M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o a r gue s tha tthi s c onc l us i on w a s i n e rr or . S he c ont e nds thatthe re cord com pel s the op po si t e c on cl usi on -- - nam el y, thatshe s uffe re d pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof bo th h erpo l i t i ca l op i ni on and h erm em bers hi p i n a soci al g r o u p . W e a d d r e s s e a c h o f th e s e c o n te n tio n s in tu rn .12

1. P ol i t i c a l O pi ni on P er se cut i on on ac coun tof po l i t i ca l op i ni on re qu i re s thatthe cl ai m ed pe r s e c ut i on be ba s e d upon the pol i t i c a l opi ni on of the vi c t i m , nottha tof

the pe r s e c ut or . S e e S a nc he z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 437- 38 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (percuri am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he appl i cantm ustes t abl i sh thathi s pol i t i ca l o p i n i o n “ wi l l c au s e h a rm o rs u f f e r i n g th a tr i s e s t o th e l e v e l o f ‘ p e r s e c u t i o n . ’ ” DM uh um ed, 38 8 F . 3d at81 8 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). In contra st , “ [e ] vi dence thatei ther is c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f p r iv a te v io le n c e o rth e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w i th g ueri l l as , or thatm er el y s ho w s thata per son h as been the vi ct i m of cr i m i nal a c tiv ity , d o e s n o t c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n as ta tu to r ily pr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o S a nc he z , 392 F . 3d a t438 ( uphol di ng deni al of as yl um because there w as no “ nexu s betw ee n [the pet i t i on er ] ’ s pol i t i ca l op i ni on and the F A R C ’ s a l l eged perse cut i on , ” but , ra ther, “ the evi dence w as consi st entw i th a fi nd i ng thatthe F A R C hara ss ed [the pet i t i on er ] du e t o h erre fusa l t o coo pera t e w i th them ”) . H er e, the evi dence s ug gest s thatthe F A R C threa t s a gai nstM art i nezQ ui nt e r o a nd C l a vi

j o w e r e m ot i va t e d by ade s i r e t o thw a r tthe pol i c e i nve s t i ga t i on in to th e m u r d e r s o f

C la v ijo ’s s is te r s , r a th e ra n y a c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . T he re cord dem on stra t es thatF A R C ’ s threa t s a gai nstM art i nez- Q ui nt er o w er e13

“c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f

p r iv a te v io le n c e ” o r“th e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w i th the gu er i l l as , ” r ather than b ei ng base d o n a po l i t i ca l op i ni on thatM art i nezQ u i n t ero h el d o r th atm ay h av e b een i m p u t ed t o h er. S ee i d . In si m i l ar cases, w h e r e th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e o f ap o litic a l m o tiv e a n d th e r e c o r d r e v e a le d o n ly pr i va t e , e xt or t i on- type thr e a t s by F A R C gue r i l l a s , w e ha ve de c l i ne d t o f i nd ane xus betw ee n the cl ai m ed pers ec ut i on and a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . F or exam pl e, in R iv e r av . U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, a n a s y lu m p e titio n e r s ’ f a m ily m e m be r s w e r e m ur de r e d be c aus e the y r e f us e d t o pa y a“ w a rt a x” t o the F A R C . 487 F .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A f te rth e m u r d e r s , th e p e titio n e r s r e c e iv e d th r e a ts and d em ands thatthe w art ax be pai d. Id. at81 9. W e c on cl ud ed thatsubst ant i al e vi de nc e s uppor t e d the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe F A R C ’ s m ot i ve f orpe r s e c ut i ng the pet i t i on er s’ fa m i l y w as t o rai se fund s f or i t s gueri l l a w aragai nstthe C ol om bi an go vernm ent , ra ther than the pet i t i on er s’ ac tual or i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on . Id. at 822- 823. I n M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o ’s c a s e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatshe f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a nexus betw ee n h ercl ai m ed pe r s e c ut i on a nd a n a c tua l ori m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on. A s the I J obs e rve d, the evi dence m akes cl ea r thatthe F A R C threa t ened her because hercom m on -l aw h u s b a n d w a s p a r tic ip a tin g in th e in v e s tig a tio n o f h is s is te r s ’ m u r d e r s a n d r e f u s e d to c oope r a t e w i th the m by w i thdr a w i ng f r om the i nve s t i ga t i on, notbe c aus e of a ny14

po l i t i ca l op i ni on thatshe hel d o r thatw as i m pu t ed t o h er . In fa ct , M art i nezQ u in te r o a c k n o w le d g e d th a t s h e a n d h e rc o m m o n - la w h u s b a n d w e r e n o t a c tiv e in the L i be r a l P a r ty ; a nd s he pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha tthe thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone ca l l s e ver m ent i on ed her pol i t i ca l op i ni on or t ar get ed her because of herpo l i t i ca l op i ni on . S ee , e. g. , i d. at82 2 (“ T he F A R C never dem anded that[the pet i t i on er ] c e a s e a ny pol i t i c a l a c t i vi t i e s , ne ve ra c c us e d [ the pe t i t i one r ] of be i ng agove rnm e nt op er at i ve, and n everdem anded thathi s f am i l y c ea se i nv ol vem enti n the L i bera l P arty. ”) ; S anchez, 39 2 F . 3d at43 8 (up ho l di ng deni al of as yl um because there w as

“ no e vi de nc e e s t abl i s hi ng [ the pe t i t i one r ] ’ s a c tua l ori m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, m u ch less an y n ex u s b etw ee n [th e p etit io n er ]’ s p o li ti ca l o p in io n an d th e F A R C ’s al l eged perse cut i on ”) . H er e, the evi dence does notcom pel the concl usi on that M art i nez- Q ui nt er o suffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on , or has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n , o n a c c o u n t o f a n a c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . 2. M e m be r s hi p i n aS oc i a l G r oup A lte rn a tiv e ly , M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o a r g u e s th a t s h e is am e m b e ro f a“s p e c ia l” g ro u p , n am ely, th o se w h o h av e c o o p er ated w ith th e C o lo m b ian g o v er n m en t’ s i nve s t i ga t i ons a ga i ns tthe F A R C a nd w ho “ oppos e ” the F A R C . A R a t18. C on se qu ent l y, she c l ai m s thather c as e s at i sf i es the thres ho l d for pers ec ut i on base d u p o n “m e m b e r s h ip in as o c ia l g r o u p .” S e e I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ( s ta tin g th a t a s y lu m m a y b e g r a n te d if th e a lie n c a n d e m o n s tr a te15

“ pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof . . . m e m b e r s h ip i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p”). W e ha ve s t a t e d tha tI N A ’ s “ pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup” c a t e gory “ s houl d notbe a ‘ ca t ch al l ’ for a l l pers on s a l l egi ng pers ec ut i on w ho do no tfi tel se w here . ” C as t i l l o-A ri as v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 6 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 98 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). R ather, w e ha ve a dhe r e d t o the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on tha tthe “ pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup” ca t egory “ re fe rs t o p er sons w ho shar e acom m on , i m m ut abl e c hara ct er i st i c, ” s uch as “ se x, col or, or ki nshi p t i es , or i n som e c i rc um st ance s ashar ed pastexperi ence su ch as fo rm er m i l i t ary l ead ersh i p o r l an d o w n ersh i p . ” Id . at1 1 9 3 (ci t at i o n s, a l t e r a t i ons , a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . I n a s s e s s i ng w he the ra n a s y l um p et i t i o n er b el o n g s t o a p art i cu l ar so ci al g ro u p , th e B IA h as fo cu sed o n tw o th i n g s: (1) i m m ut abi l i ty; and (2) soci al vi si bi l i ty. S ee i d. at11 94 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). I n thi s c a s e , M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o s e e ks t o c ons true he rs oc i a l gr oup a s be i ng th o s e w h o “ th e g u e r i l l a s [ h a v e ] t a r g e t e d w i th i n th e s o c i e ty ” f o ro p p o s i n g th e m, i nc l udi ng “ l oc a l of

f i c i a l s , c i vi c l e a de r s , bus i ne s s ow ne r s , c a tt l e m e n, f a rm e r s , a nd t e a c he r s . ” A R a t18. E l s e w he r e , M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o br oa dl y de s c r i be s he rput a t i ve s o c ia l g r o u p a s b e in g “a n y o n e e n g a g e d in a n y k in d o f a c tiv ity , e s p e c ia lly in c ol l abor a t i on w i th the gove rnm e nt . ” B r . of P e t ’ ra t16. W e r e w e t o a c c e pt M a r t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o’ s br oa d f orm ul a t i on of

he rs oc i a l gr oup a s e nc om pa s s i ng a l l of the pe opl e w ho “ the gue r i l l a s [ ha ve ] t a r ge t e d w i thi n the s oc i e ty , ” A R a t18, theMoreover, wecannot f ind that Martinez-Quintero’ s purported soc ial grou p share s common, 5 immutable characteristics, other than the share d risk that they will be perse cuted in the f uture by F ARC. See AR at 18 (de scribing the so c ial grou p as “l oc al of

fi c ials, c ivi cle aders , bus ine ss o wn ers , cattlemen, f

armers, and teachers,” as well as other groups that oppose FARC). We have made cle ar that “[t] he risk of perse cution alone doe s not create a pa rticular soc ial group within the meaningof the I NA, as virtually

the entire population of C olombia is a potential subject of persecution.” See Castillo-Arias, 446 F.3d at 1198 (citation omitted). 16 r e s ul tw oul d be t o c r e a t e a“ c a t c h- a l l ” c a t e gory “ f ora l l pe r s ons a l l e gi ng p e r s e c u tio n w h o d o n o t f it e ls e w h e r e .” S e e C a s tillo - A r ia s , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 8 . T h is

5 w e dec l i ne t o d o. A cc ordi ng l y, the evi dence does notcom pel the concl usi on that s he s uf f e r e d pe r s e c ut i on, orha s aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, “ on a c c ount of” her “ m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, ” a s thatt erm has bee n con strued b y th e B I A a n din o u rc a s e law . S e e I N A § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A ). I I I . CONCL US I ON I n s um m a ry , M ar t i ne z - Q ui nt e r o ha s pe t i t i one d thi s c our tf orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on on he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on, w hi c h a dopt e d, i n f ul l , the r e a s oni ng of the I J . U pon r e vi e w , w e f i nd tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the de t e rm i na t i on thatM art i nez- Q ui nt er o fai l ed t o d em on stra t e pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on “ on ac c ount of ” as t a tu t o r i l y p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d . I NA § 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ) ( em p h as is ad d ed ). B ec au se th e B IA ’s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , w e a f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on d e n y in g M a r tin e z - Q u in te r o ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m . P E T I T I ON DI S MI S S E D.