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 4, 2008 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. 08- 10273 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 97- 948- 067 & A 97- 948- 068 RAFAEL M . HERNAN DEZ, P A U L A A . H E RN A N D E Z , P e titio n e r s , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 4, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R a f a e l H e rna nde z a nd hi s da ught e r , P a ul a H e rna nde z , pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of the f i na l or de rof

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 r m e d the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde 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 ” ) 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 ga i ns tT or tur e ( “ C A T ” ) . A f t e rr e vi e w , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D H ernand ez and h i s daugh t erP aul a, bo th n at i ves a nd ci t i ze ns of P eru, arri ved i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 2001 a s noni m m i gr a ntvi s i t or s . O n O c t obe r7, 2004, the D e pa r tm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty ( “ D H S ” ) i s s ue d not i c e s t o appe a r , c ha r gi ng H e rna nde z a nd P a ul a w i th r e m ova bi l i ty f ors t a y i ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s pa s tthe a u th o r iz e d p e r io d , p u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . H ern an d ez an d P au l a co n ced ed rem o v ab i l i ty. O n M ay 20 , 20 05 , w hi ch w as al m ostfour ye ar s a ft erarri val i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s , H e rna nde z f

i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd C A T rel i ef. A cco rd i n g t o H ern an d ez’ s ap p l i cat i o n an d h eari n g t est i m o n y, H ernand ez w as a busi ness m an l i vi ng i n L i m a, P eru, w ho ow ned severa l com pani es a nd w a s i nvol ve d i n the i m por ta nd s a l e of a ut om obi l e s . F r om 1994 t o 1996, H ernand ez supp ort ed then-pres i dentA l bert o F uj i m ori and h i s pol i t i ca l party, P eru 2 0 0 0 . H ern an d ez d o n at ed l arg e am o u n t s o f m o n ey t o P eru 2 0 0 0 , p art i ci p at ed as a3

c oor di na t orf

orF uj i m or i ’ s 1995 r e - e l e c t i on, a nd ope nl y e xpr e s s e d hi s s uppor tf or F u j i m o ri ’ s i d eas b efo re fri en d s an d co l l eag u es. In 19 94 , H ernand ez began rece i vi ng threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s abo utthree t i m es a w ee k t o h i s c el l , w ork, and h om e pho ne nu m bers . T he ca l l er s i dent i fi ed them se l ves a s m em bers of the S hi ni ng P ath, a t errori storgani za t i on , and d em anded m o n e y in e x c h a n g e f

o rth e s a f e ty o f H e rn a n d e z a n d h is f

a m ily . A c c o r d in g to H e rna nde z , the S hi ni ng P a th c a l l e d hi m “ [ b] e c a us e I w a s c oope r a t i ng w i th the p a r ty th a tw a s c o n f

r o n t i n g th e m a n d w a s . . . a tw a rw i th th e m. A n d d u e t o my ec on om i c s i tuat i on they tho ug htthatthey c ou l d ask m on ey fr om m e. ” H ernand ez r e p o r t e d th e th r e a t s t o th e p o l i c e , b u tth e p o l i c e c o u l d n o tp r o t e c th i m. I n M a y 1996, H e rna nde z ’ s c a rw a s f or c e d of f the r oa d by tw o c a r s . T he dri vers i dent i fi ed them se l ves a s S hi ni ng P ath m em bers and t ol d H ernand ez he had t o l i st en t o thei r r equestand coo pera t e w i th thei r f i gh t . T he S hi ni ng P ath m em bers c o u ld n o t d e ta in H e rn a n d e z b e c a u s e e m e r g e n c y v e h ic le s a rr iv e d to h e lp . H e rna nde z s uf

f e r e d bl ow s t o the he a d a nd w ounds t o hi s ba c k. I n e a r l y 2000, H e rna nde z ’ s m a i d w a s be a tup, a nd the i ndi vi dua l s t ol d he rthe y kne w a l l of H e rn a n d e z ’s m o v e m e n ts a n d th a t H e rn a n d e z s h o u ld g iv e th e m m o n e y f o rth e ir arm ed fi gh t . T he nexti nci dentoccurre d i n N ov em ber 200 0, w hen t hree in d iv id u a ls a tta c k e d H e rn a n d e z a s h e le f t h is h o u s e a n d a tte m p te d to k id n ap h im . T he i ndi vi dua l s i de nt i f

i e d the m s e l ve s a s m e m be r s of the S hi ni ng P a th a nd a s the4

peop l e w ho w er e m aki ng the ca l l s. T hey f orce d H ernand ez i nt o a vehi cl e, bu tfl ed w h en th ey h eard p o l i ce si ren s. H ernand ez t es t i fi ed he i s a fr ai d t o return t o P eru b ec ause “ I’ m an ea sy t ar get f o rth e m b a s e d o n m y p o litic a l o p in io n a n d m y c o o p e r a tio n w ith A lb e r to F uj i m ori ’ s c am pai gn , ” a nd thathe fe ar ed for hi s f am i l y’ s l i ves. H ernand ez s ubm i tt e d c opi e s of

l e tt e r s he ha d w r i tt e n t o pol i c e r e que s t i ng pr ot e c t i on f ol l ow i ng the s e i nc i de nt s . T he I J a l s o c ons i de r e d othe re xhi bi t s i nc l udi ng c ountry r e por t s a nd n ew sp ap er art i cl es. T h e I J f o u n d th a t H e rn a n d e z ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m w a s u n tim e ly . A s to w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , the I J f

ound H e rna nde z f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h hi s l i f

e or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened based on a prote ct ed grou nd and currentcoun try cond i t i on s. F i nal l y, the IJ re j ec t ed H ernand ez ’ s r equestfor C A T re l i ef . H e rna nde z appe a l e d t o the B I A , c ha l l e ngi ng onl y the I J ’ s w i thhol di ng of re m ov al rul i ng . T he B IA di sm i ss ed H ernand ez ’ s app ea l , fi nd i ng thatH ernand ez f a ile d to c a rry h is b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g h e s u f

f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a d a w e llf o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o te c te d g r o u n d a n d th u s c o u ld note s t a bl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . H e rna nde z f

i l e d thi s pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. I I . DI S CUS S I ONBe causethe B IA issued its own decision and did not expressly adopt the IJ ’s dec ision as 1 to Herna ndez’s claim of withholdingof removal, we review only the B IA’s dec ision. S ee A l Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We review leg al deter minations de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247- 48 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the B IA’s fac tual deter

minations under the substantial evidenc e test. Ade femi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) . Under this highly

deferential test, to reversethe B IA’s decision, “w e must find that the re cord not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). The f act that evidencein the rec ord may al s o s u p p o rta c o n c lu s i o nc o ntrar

y t o th ea dm i n i s trat i v ef

i n di n g s i s n o te n o u ght o j u s t i f y a reversal. Ade femi, 386 F .3d at 1027. 5 On ap p e a l , He rn a n d e z c h a l l e n g e s th e d e n i a l o f wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l . An

1 a l i e n s e e ki ng w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l m us ts how tha thi s “ l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be th reat en ed i n th atco u n try b ecau se o f th e al i en ’ s race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, m e m b e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” I NA § 24 1(b)(3)(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ). In ot her w ords, the al i en has the bu rden of pr oof t o s how tha the “ m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- not ” w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ountof o n e o f th e f iv e p r o te c te d g r o u n d s if h e r e tu rn e d to th e c o u n try in q u e s tio n . S ee M endo zav. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). T he al i en ca n m ee tthi s burden b y s ho w i ng ei ther: (1) “ pastpers ec ut i on i n h i s c ou ntry base d o n a p r o te c te d g r o u n d ,” in w h ic h c a s e a r e b u ttab le p r e s u m p tio n is c r e a te d th a t h is l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened i f he r eturned t o h i s c ou ntry ; or (2) “ a f uture thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound i n hi s c ountry . ” I d. ; s e e a l s o 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 1), (2). H ere, th e B IA co n cl u d ed H ern an d ez fai l ed t o est ab l i sh th atan y p ast pers ec ut i on or fe ar ed future pers ec ut i on w as “ on ac coun tof” a ny prot ec t edBe causewe c onclude that substantial evidence suppor ts the BIA’s findingthat 2 Her nandez failed to show past or fe are d future persecution on account of a prote cted ground, we need not address whether the actions of the Shining Path member s rise to the leve l of perse cution. 6 g r o u n d

– in c lu d in g a c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n , a s H e rn a n d e z a r g u e s in h is b r ie f s o n ap p e a l. A f

te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l a fi n d i n g t o th e co n trary. 2 Al th o u g h th e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s o f th e th r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s , two att em pt ed ki dn appi ng s, and b ea t i ng of H ernand ez ’ s m ai d m ay have es t abl i shed pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, H e rna nde z di d notpr e s e ntc om pe l l i ng e vi de nc e tha tthe p er se cu ti o n w as m o ti v ated b y a n y p ro tected g ro u n d . A cc o rd in g to H er n an d ez ’s desc ri pt i on s of the ph on e c al l s a nd the att ac ks, the S hi ni ng P ath m em bers never m e nt i one d hi s pol i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i on butr a the rs oughtonl y hi s m one y a nd c oope r a t i on. S e e R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( “[ 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 io le n c e o rth e p e titio n e r 's f a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e w i th gue r i l l a s , ortha tm e r e l y s how s tha ta pe r s on ha s be e n the vi c t i m of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , doe s notc ons t i tut e e vi de nc e of pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on a s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” ) . I n f a c t , H e rna nde z hi m s e l f

t e s t i f i e d tha ti tw a s due to h is “e c o n o m ic s itu a tio n ” th a t th e y th o u g h t th e y c o u ld g e t m o n e y f r o m h im . H e rn a n d e z p r o d u c e d n o e v id e n c e th a t th e S h in in g P a th m e m b e r s e v e n k n e w o f h is p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i ty e x c e p tf o rh i s o w n c o n c l u s o ry a l l e g a t i o n s . Fo rth e s e s a meHern and e z al so re qu e sts thi s Co ur t re mand thec a seto allo w Pa

ula to f ilea sepa ra te 3 application for

withholding of removal under Delg ado v. U.S. Att’y

Gen, 487 F .3d 855, 862 ( 1 1 thC i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , wh i c hh e l d th e rearen o d e ri v at i v eb e n e f i t s f o r w i thh o l di n go f

re m o v al . In Delg ado, this Court concluded that the husband and son were entitled to withhol ding of removal based on the ir own orig inal applications. I d. This Court concluded, however, that the wife, who did not file her own a

pplication, had no derivative bene fits from her husband’s withholdingof remov al c laim. I d. at 35 9, 86 2. No ta bly, th eDe lg a do Court

did no t re mand

to p e rmit thewi feto file her own application, but rather denied her petition. I d. at 862. Thus, nothing in De lgado supports remandingthe ca se for Paula to file her

own application. In addition, Paula raised no arguments reg ardingher entitlement to withhol ding of removal independent of

Her nandez’s before either

the IJor the B IA, and wedecline to c onsider her claim independently

for that re a so n a s w e ll. 7 r e a s ons , H e rna nde z f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on b as ed o n p o li ti ca l o p in io n . A cc o rd in g ly, su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s f in d in g s th a t H e rn a n d e z f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e S h in in g P a th ta r g e te d h im be c a us e of

hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on a nd tha tH e rna nde z i s s t a tut or i l y i ne l i gi bl e f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. 3 PETI TI O N D EN I ED .