FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT April 15, 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- 13386 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 78- 603- 021 A 78- 603- 022 A D R I A N A T O R R E S G A M B O A , L U I S E D U A R D O N I N O N O R I E G A , A D R I A N A L U C I A N I N O T O R R E S , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l 15, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A 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:Be causePetitioners have not esta blished a ca se for

asylum, we do not consider whether 1 they satisfied the higher standa rd for withholding of removal under the I NA or CAT relief. See Forgue v. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1288 n. 4 (11th Cir. 2005). T o th ee x t e ntP e t i t i o n e r s a l s o r a i s eana rgum e ntc o n c e r

n i n gG amb o a ’ s c r e d ib i l i ty , th e IJ 2 found her to be credible and theBIA af firmed that finding. We see no oc casion to re visit the issue of her cre dibility

here . 2 L e a d pe t i t i one rA d ri an a T or r e s G a m boa , he rhus ba nd L ui s E dua r do N i no N or i e ga , a nd the i rm i norda ught e r , a l l n at i v es a nd c i t i z e ns of C ol om bi a , pe t i t i on thi s C ou rtt o revi ew the fi nal order of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) , w hi c h a f

f i r m e d the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( I J ” ) de ni a l of asyl u m u nde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) . P e t i t i one r s a r gue the B I A e r red by 1 af fi rm i ng the IJ ’ s deni al of as ylu m , w hi ch w as base d o n t he IJ ’ s f i nd i ng that G a m boa di d note s t a bl i s h r e f uge e st atus be c a us e s he f a i l e d t o s how a ne xus betw ee n h erpo l i t i ca l op i nion or m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p (m edi ca l perso n n el) and t hrea t s m ade by the N at i on al L i bera t i on A rm y ( “ E L N ”) . A ft er 2
c a r e f ul r e vi e w , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. W e r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n “e x c e p t to th e e x t e n t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a do p t s th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . ” Ch a c o n - Bo t e r o v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n . , 4 2 7 F. 3 d 954, 957 n . 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T o th e ex t en tth e B IA ad o p t s th e IJ’ s d eci si o n , w e al so re vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on . A l N a j j a r v. A s hc r of

t , 25 7 F. 3d 12 62 , 12 84 ( 11 t h C i r. 20 01 ). A l tho ug h h er e, the B IA di d n otex p re ss ly adop tthe IJ ’ s dec i si on , the B IAThe B oard also cited one of its own de cisions, Matter of B urbano, 20 I &NDec . 872, 874 3 (B IA 1994), for

the proposition that “ adoption or aff irmance of a de cision of an Immigration Judg e, in whole or in par

t, is ‘simpl y

a stateme nt that the Bo ar d ’s conclusions upon re view of therec ord c oin c idewi th t

ho sewh ic h theImmi gra

tio n Judg eartic ulate d in

his or he r d e c isi on .’ ”In a

ny e ve nt, thepa rtie s agre etha

t ou r re view enc omp a sse s b oth de c isi on s. 3 di d a gr e e w i th the I J ’ s r e a s oni ng a nd br i e f l y a r t i cu l at ed i t s r e a s ons f ordoi ng s o, 3
a nd , t hu s , th i s Co u r tr e v i e ws b o th d e c i s i o n s . Ch a c o n - Bo t e r o , 4 2 7 F. 3 d a t9 5 6 . To the ext entthatthe IJ ’ s an d the B IA ’ s dec i si on s w er e bas ed on a l egal de t e r m i na t i on, ourr e vi e w i s de novo. M oha m m e d v. A s hc r of t , 261 F . 3d 1244, 1247- 48 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he I J’ s fac tua l de t e r m i na t i ons a r e r e vi e w e d unde rthe su b st an t i a l e v id e n c e t est , m ean i n g th atw e “ m u staffi rm th e B IA ’ s [an d th e IJ’ s] de c i s i on i f

i ti s s uppor t e d b y rea s ona bl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the re cord consi dere d as a w ho l e. ” A l N aj j ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 83 -84 (qu ot at i on om i t t ed). U n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, th e d e n ia l o f a s y l u m m a y b e r e v e r s e d o n ly if the e vi de nc e w oul d c om pe l a re a s ona bl e f a c t f i nde rt o f

i nd tha tthe r e qui s i t e f

e a rof pers ec ut i on exi st s. I. N . S . v. E l i as -Z ac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 1 n . 1 (19 92 ). A n a l i e n w h o arri v es i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y a ppl y f or asylu m . S ee IN A § 2 08 (a )( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (1). T he A t t orney G ener al has d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f

a “r e f u g e e .” S e e I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” i s a n y p e r s o n w h o is u n w il li n g to re tu r n to h e r h o m e c o u n try o r to av ail h im se lf o f th at co u n try’s pr ot e c t i on “ be c a us e of pe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l - f ou n d ed f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on4

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 a pa r t i c ul ar so ci al gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . T he as yl um appl i ca ntca rr ies th e bu rden of prov i ng st atut ory “ re fugee” s t a tus . S ee A l N a

j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . T he a ppl i c a nt sat i sfi es th is b u r d en b y sh o w i n g , w i th sp eci fi c an d cred i b l e ev i d en ce: (1 ) p ast pers ec ut i on on ac coun t of a st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a “ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” tha thi s orhe rs t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f a c t orw i l l c a us e f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. A l N a j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287; 8 C . F . R . § 20 8 . 13( a ) , ( b) . I n or de rt o be e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um , the a s y lu m a p p lic a n t m u s t - - in a d d itio n to d e m o n s tr a tin g p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o ra w e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe rsecu t i o n -- e s t a bl i s h tha ts uc h pe r s e c ut i on i s “ on a c c ount of ” one of the e num e r a t e d s t a tut or y gr ounds . 8 U . S . C . § 1 101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ; s e e a l s o 8 U . S . C . § 1158( b) ( 1 )( B ) ( i ) ( “ T o e s t a bl i s h tha tthe a ppl i c a nti s a r e f uge e . . . the appl i ca ntm ustes t abl i sh thatra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s oc i a l gr oup, o r p o l 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 or pe r s e cu t i ng the a ppl i c a nt ” ) ; M a z a r i e gos v. U . S . A t t ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1323 (1 1th C i r . 2001) ( s t a t i ng tha tthe a s y l um a ppl i c a ntm us tpr ovi de e vi de nc e tha t“ he w as m i stre at ed because of hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on , or on e of the ot her groun ds, ra ther tha n f ors om e othe rr e a s on. ” ) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons om i t t ed ). “ D e m ons tr a t i ng s uc h a c onne c t i on r e qui r e s the a l i e n t o pr e s e nts pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng a good re as on to fe arthathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof [a5

s t a tut or y f

a c t or ] . ” A l N a

j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i t t ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). H er e, t he f

a c t s do no tc ompe l us t o c on c l ud e , c on tr a r y t o the I J ’ s f a ctual f i ndi ngs a nd the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, tha tG a m boa m e the rbur de n t o e s t a bl i s h a ne xus b e tw e e n h e rp o litic a l o p in io n o r m e m b e r s h i p in a s o c ia l g r o u p ( m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l) and t he i nci dent s on w hi ch she r el i es t o sho w pastpers ec u t i on and a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . A s th e B I A p u t it: [T ] he re spon dent s f

ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthey f ac ed a w el l -f

ou nd ed f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i n C ol om bi a o n acco u ntof the i rpol i t i c a l opi ni on or any ot her p ro tect ed grou nd . T he Im m i grat i on Judg e properl y not ed thatthe gu er i l l as ar e n otfocuse d o n t he l ea d res po nd ent ’ s pol i t i ca l i de ol ogy , butr a the r , tha ts he w a s s pe a ki ng t o y ouths an d thus h in d e r in g th e irr e c ru itm e n t e f f o r ts , a n d b e c a u s e s h e h e r s e lf r e f u s e d to j o i n th e g u eri l l as t o p ro v i d e m ed i cal care t o th ei r so l d i ers. O n th is re co rd , v iew in g th e e v id en ce in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e B IA ’s c onc l us i on, a nd dr a w i ng a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e n ces i n f

a vorof tha tde c i s i on, the e vi de n ce p r e s e nt e d i n thi s c a s e doe s notc om pe l a c onc l us i on c ontr a r y t o the f i n d i n g o f th e BI A o n th e n e x u s e l e me n to f G a mb o a ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.