FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 63 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -9 26 -6 25 ALONSO JAVIER BARRAZA VAL BUENA, et al ., lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Inth is imm ig rat io n c as e we are cal le d t o re vi ew th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA”) rul in g t ha t the pe ti ti on ers di d n otest ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe arof

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f th ei r po li ti cal op in io ns . W e fi ndth atsubs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e ru li ng , andwe de ny the pe ti ti on . Leadpe ti ti on er, Alo ns o J av ie r BarrazaValb ue na(“ Valb ue na ”), an d h is wife , Reb eca Al ejan dr a Ro dr ig ue z Urd an et a (co ll ect iv el y “ Pet it io ne rs ”), ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m

purs uantto 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r 8 U.S.C . § 12 31 , andpro te ct io n u nd er the Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § § 12 08 .16 –.1 8. Th ei r ap pl ic at io ns are b as edon all eg at io ns of f ear tha t ar os e fro m co nf li ct s wi th two m em

be rs of t he Vene zu el anNati on al Guar d. Th e subs tanc e o f th e co nf li ctin cl ud es cla im s tha t the Nati on al Guar d m em be rs im pr op erl y de ta in ed Pet it io ne rs ov ern ig htan d t he n s to le th ei r so un d e qu ip m en t. Aft er the in ci de ntwas rep orte d t o t he po li ce, the Nati on al Guar d m em be rs m ad e v ari ou s thr eat s, at ta ck s, an d d em an ds for

m on ey . The BI A di sm is se d t he ap pe al , reas on in g t ha t Pe ti ti on ers fai le d t o s ho w a ne xu s b etweenth e ab us e an d ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d fo r as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . Add it io na ll y , th e BIA d idno t b el ie ve th e reco rdsupp orte d aco nc lu si on th atth e Ven ezu el ango ve rn m en t was un wil li ng or un ab le to pro te ctPet it io ne rs . Fin al ly, be cau se th e in ci de nt s o ccurredov er 1 0 y ears ag o, the BIA co nc lu de d t ha t Pe ti ti on ers di d n otha ve a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on .

“ W e rev ie w on ly the [BIA’s] deci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atitex pr es sl y 2ad op ts th e [i m mig rat io n ju dg e’s] opi ni on .” Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Here, the BIA d idno t ad op t the IJ’s o pi ni on , so we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . “ [W] e v ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof th atde ci si on .” Ade

fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). The re vi ewin g c ou rt “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Asylum is on ly avai labl e to ap pl ic an ts who pro ve th atth ey are a “ refu ge e” withi n the m ean in g o f th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act . 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 ). A “refu ge e” i s: an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s nat io na li ty or, in th e cas e o f a p ers on ha vi ng no na ti on al ity , is ou ts id e an y co un try in whi chsu chpe rs on las t h ab itua ll y res id ed , andwho is un ab le or un wil li ng to return t o, an d i s u nabl e o r un wil li ng to av ai l h im se lf o r he rs el f of th e p ro te ct io n o f, th atco un try becaus e o f pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, na ti on al ity , m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n[ .] 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The asylu m ap pl ic an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g st atut ory “ refu ge e” s tatu s. Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4 (c it in g 8 C.F.R. § 2 08 .13 (a)) . 3As an in it ia l m at te r, we la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Val bu en a’s cl ai m th at he was p ers ecu te d b ecau se of h is ass oc ia ti on with apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up . This cl ai m is no t ex haus te d b ecau se Valb ue nadi d n otm ak e itinhi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n an d d idno t ar gu e itbe fo re the immig rat io n ju dg e, an d we c an no t co ns id er cl ai m s fo r whi chadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s h av e n otbe enex haus te d. Amaya -Art un du ag a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). W e are no t co m

pe ll edto rev ers e th e BIA’s fi nd in g tha t Val bu en a fai le d t o sh ow tha t an y

pe rs ecu ti on he m ay

ha ve su ffer edwas o n a cco un t o f hi s i m pu te d po li ti cal op in io n. Whenth e rec or d i s v ie wedas awho le , subs tant ia l ev id en ce supp orts th e co nc lu si on th atth e Nat io na l Gu ardm em be rs were m ot iv at edby greed an d re ta li at io n fo r Val bu en a’s de ci si on to rep ort m is co nduc t t o t he po li ce. We al so ag ree t ha t the reco rddo es no t s up po rt t he co nc lu si on th atth e Gov ern m en t i s un wil li ng or u nabl e to pro te ctPet it io ne rs or t ha t the y ha ve a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Accor di ng ly, Pet it io ne rs are n oteli gi bl e fo r as y lu m . Bec au se Pet it io ne rs ha ve fai le d t o e st ab li sh th ei r el ig ib il ity for asylu m , th ey ha ve , by ex te ns io n, fa il edto sat is fy th e m or e st rin ge ntburd enforwithh ol di ng of rem ov al or p ro te ct io n u nd er CAT. See For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 88 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e

4pa rti es ’ ap pe ll at e b rie fs , we den y th e p et it io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED .

5