FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble David G. T rag er, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1198 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N os. A 79- 513- 473 & A 79- 513- 504 JHONYER FRANCI SCO MAR IN MEJ IA, MARIA EUGENIA MARTINEZ CAMARGO, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 6, 200 7) Before BA RKE TT and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and TR AG ER , District

* Judg e.Al tho ugh th e I J als o d e nie d th e ir re qu e st f or re lie f u nd e r t he Conve nti on

Ag a ins t 1 To rt ur e (“ CA T” ), the pe tit ion e rs do no t c ha lle ng e that de nia l on a pp e a l. We the re fo re de e m it to be aba ndoned. See A l Najjar v. A shcrof t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001). Be cause the I J made no a dverse cre dibilit y finding , we take Mejia’s testimony as true. 2 2 BARKE TT , C ircuit Judg e: Jhon y er F ranc isc o M ar in M ej ia( “ Me j ia ”) a nd h is w if

e, Mari a E uge nia Mart ine z Cam ar go ( “ Cam ar go” ), thr oughc ouns el , se ek r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of Im m igration Appeal * s ( “ BI A ”) de ci sio n a ff irm ing the I m

m igr at ionJud ge * s (“ IJ”) or de r de ny ing the ir

appl ic at ionf

or a sy lum a nd w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the Im m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A” ). On a ppeal, the petitioners argue that 1 the BIAerr ed by

finding th at they

(1) f ailed to dem onstrate past persecution or a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on; and ( 2) f ai le d to de m onstrate that any pe rs ec uti on the y

suf fe re d w as on a cc ount

of apr ote ct ed

gr ound . T he y

c la im to ha ve de m onstrate d pa st p er se cu tio n by the Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of Co lom bia ( “ FA RC ”) on a cc ount

of Me j ia * s s up p o rtf

o r t h e Li b e r a l P a rt y. BACKGRO UND Me j iaj oin ed the L ibe ra l P ar

ty in 1995 , a nd s oon be cam e ac tiv e in a vari ety of P ar ty a ct ivi tie s. H e as sis te d aP ar ty -s pons or ed

li te ra cy c am pa ignin 1997 , 2 supp orte d th e Party ’ s 19 98 p re sid en tia l c am pa ign , a tte nde d “pe ac e w al ks, ” an d pr ep ar ed pol iti ca l pam

phl et s. Me

j iaw as e spe ci al ly

a ct ive a s am em

be r ofThe F ARC emerg ed in the 1960s as the r adica liz ed lef tist by -produc t of a ten- y ear de 3 fac to civil war be tween L ibera ls and Conservatives in Colombia known as L a Violenc ia. J ose E. Arve lo, Note, International L aw a nd Conflict Resolution i n Colombi a: B alanc ing Pea ce a nd J ustice in the Para

milit ary Demobilization P roce ss, 37 Geo. J. I nt’l L . 411, 415-17 (2006) . The F AR C c la ims to “ re pr e se nt t he ru ra l po or a g a ins t Co lom

bia ’s we a lthy

c la sse s a nd op po se Americ an influenc e in Colombia (particula rly Plan Colom bia), the pr ivatization of natural re so ur c e s, mul tin atio na l c or po ratio ns and

ri g hte st v iol e nc e .” Counc il o n F or e ig n Re latio ns , FARC, EL

N, AUC (Colombia, rebe ls) (Nov. 2005), htt p:/ /w ww .c fr .o rg/pu

bli c atio n/9 27 2/f

arc _e ln_ a uc _c olo mbi a

_r e be ls. htm l?bre a dc rumb= %2 F re g io n% 2F 24 6% 2F c olo mbi a . In o rd e r t o a dv anc e thi s p oli tic a l ph ilo so phy , th e F AR C ha s st ru g g le d to seize power f

rom, and in some ar eas e ffe ctively repla ce, the Colombi an g overnme nt. Wi lliam D. Shingleton, Unde rstandingColombi a, 25 F letcher F. World Aff

. 255, 260 (2001). 3 “ Co m m une 20, ” a Party -a sso ci at ed y outh gr oup in the pe tit ion er s’ hom et ow n of Ca li. W ithCo m

m une 20, Me

j iaor ganiz ed

y outh so cc er

a nd b as ke tba ll ga m es , a nd also encouraged y oung people to participate in program s that provid ed sex ed uc at iona nd atte m

pte d to im

ple m en t po lic ie s a ga ins t the use of dr ugs an d weap on s. Me

jia s ta te d t ha t t he se were am on g t he id eal s o f th e Lib eral Part y . Com m une 20 m et w eekly , and pu t on larger events approxim ately twice per y ear. Me j iate sti fi ed

that hi s a ct ivi tie s c au ght the a tte nti on o f the F A RC —the m os t p owe rfu l g ue rri ll a g ro up in Co lo m bi a —wh ic h o pp os edth e Lib eral Part y . 3 Mej ia further contends that the FA RC perse cuted him on account of his su pport an d part ic ipatio n inP ar

ty a ct ivi tie s, be gin nin g in199 9 and c ont inu ing thr ough Fe br uary 200 1. T he f

ir st i nc ide nt o cc ur

re d onO ct obe r 15, 199 9, w he n M ej ia found graffiti at his wife ’ s farm which alluded to the FAR C’ s presence in the ar ea, and refe renced him

specifically . Thinking th at the graff iti was the w ork of FA RC4

gue rr ill as w ho w er e sim

ply pa ssi ng thr oughthe a re a, Me j iaa nd C am ar go d id n ot report the incident to the po lice. Then, on October 7, 2000 , during a y outh soccer ga m e as soc ia te d w iththe L ibe ra l P ar ty , tw o un ide nti fi ed

ind ivi dua ls thr ewalarg e rock at Mej ia and then quickl y fled the scene. When Mej ia returned hom e, Cam ar go i nf

orm ed him that sh e ha d r ec ei ve d athr eate nin g ph one c al l f ro m the FA RC ins tr

uc tin g M ej iato sto p a ll co nta ct w iththe c om

m uni ty a nd t o su spe nd h is pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s. T he a tta ck s e sc al at ed . O n N ove m be r 27, 200 0, thr ee a rm ed m enide nti fy ing the m se lve s a s m em

be rs of the F A RC sto ppe d M ej iaa nd C am ar go’ s c ar on a roadway outsid e of Ca li. O ne of the m en cam e to Cam argo’ s side of the vehicle, w hil e an oth er

appr oa ch ed

on M ej ia ’ s si de . T he m enf or ce d M ej iato ex it the vehicle. O ne of them

put a gun to Mej ia’ s head, told him that he knew w here Mej ia and his fam ily

lived, acc used him

of being a traitor, and asked him whether

“ the c al l w as e noug h. ” T he m entol d M ej iathat he sho uld go f ar a w ay , a nd tha t he wa s to sto p “ doin g what [he] wa s invo lved in” and “ had to sto p all contact that [h e] w as havin g w iththe c om m uni ty . ” T he y

the n th re wMe

j iadown and h it him

in the f ac e w iththe butt of

ar if le , br eakin g hi s no se . A s he lay on the gr ound , the m en hurled insu lts at him before depar

ting. Mej ia w ent to the hos pital for surgery on h is n ose . H e re porte d th e inc ide nt t o th e pol ic e on N ove m be r 29, 200 0.Mejia had a ppare ntly planned to travel to the United States in Dec ember 2000, but 4 delayed his trip due to “some diff iculties.” 5 Finally , on Fe bruary

3, 2001, Mej ia rec eived a “ condol ence” le tter w hich spe ci fi ca lly

nam ed him a nd r ef er en ce d hi s “ sur e de ath. ” Me j iaa lso r ep orte d th is incident to the police, who tol d him that they could no t offer

him security . H e then m ad e plans t o tr av el to the U nit ed S ta te s. A ft er

he le ft , his m oth er

c ont inu ed

to 4 re ce ive thr eate nin g ph one c al ls s ay ing that the F A RC w as loo kin g f or Me j iaa nd t h a ti tw o u l df

i n dh i m. O n or about Marc h 15 , 200 1, Me

j iaa nd C am ar go w er e adm itt ed to the U nit ed S ta te s a s no nim

m igr an t vi sit or s f

or bus ine ss, w ithauth or iz at ionto re m ai n unt il Se pte m

be r 14, 200 1. O n January 22, 200 2, Me

j iaf ile d an a ppl ic at ionf

or asy lum on behalf of his wife and him self, withholdin g of rem oval, and relief under the CAT . In Februar

y 2002 , the I m

m igration and Naturalization Service (“ IN S”) se rv ed the pe tit ion er s w ithnot ic es to ap pe ar , c harg ing the m w ithr em ova

bil ity under INA§ 237(a)(1)(B ), 8 U. S. C. § 122 7(a)( 1)(B) , f or rem aining in the United St at es fora ti m e lo ng er t ha n p erm it te d. Fo llo w ing ahe ar ing on M ej ia ’ s c la im s, the I J f ound that “ fo r the m ost

part ” Me j ia ’ s te sti m ony

w as c onsi ste nt w ithhis appl ic at ion , a nd m ad e no a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing . T he I J c onc lud ed , how ev er , that M ej ia ’ s “ lim ite d po lit ic al a nd co m m uni ty a ct ivi sm ” did

not a m ount to pa st p er se cu tio n or

ar ea sona

ble f ear of6

fu tur e pe rs ec uti on, a nd d en ie d M ej ia ’ s a ppl ic at ionf

or a sy lum a nd w ith hol din g of re m ova l. O n a

ppe al , the BI A a ff

irm ed in a se parate opi nio n. W e “ re vie w [] onl y

the de ci sio n of

the BI A , e xc ep t t o th e ex te nt tha t i t ex pr es sly a dopt s th e IJ ’ s op ini on. ” N re kav. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 408 F . 3d 1 361, 136 8 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( int er

na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). T o th e ex te nt tha t the BI A or I J’ s de ci sio n w as ba se d onale ga l de te rm inatio n, w e re vie wde nov o. I d. W e re view the I J and BIA ’ s factual deter m ination s under the sub stantial evidence test, and w e w ill “ affir

m the [IJ’ s] decision if it is su pported byrea sonable, subs tanti al , a nd p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” F or gue v. U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 128 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( al te ratio n inor igi na l) (internal quotation s and citations om itted). DISC US SION A n a lie n w ho arr ive s in , or is pr es en t i n, the U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . INA§ 209 (a)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(a)( 1). Under the INA , the A ttorney G en er al or

S ec re tary

of H om el an d S ec ur ity

m ay gr an t a sy lum

if the a lie n m ee ts the statut or y de fi nit ionof

“ re fu ge e. ” S ee 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( b) (1 )( A ). T he de fi nit ionof re fu ge e inc lud es : 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 . .

. a nd who i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , a nd i s un ab le or unwilling to avail him self or herse lf of the protection of, that c ount ry be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n7

account of rac e, religion, nationality , m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup, or

pol iti ca l op ini on. Id . § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t ha s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng the

“ refugee” status that entit les him or her to be considered for a sy lum . Al N ajj ar, 257 F. 3d at 12 84; 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) . I n or de r to c ar ry thi s burd en , the appl ic an t m ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce , e sta bli sh ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n on account of a statutorily

protected ground or (2) a w ell-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protecte d ground . 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b); Al N ajj ar, 257 F. 3d at 12 87. T o e sta bli sh a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on, the appl ic an t ne ed onl y showthat “ [t ] he re is a re as ona ble pos sib ili ty

of suf fe ri ng s uc h pe rs ec uti on i f he or she w er e to r et

ur n to that c ountry . ” 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (2 )( i) (B ) (e m pha sis ad de d) ; se e al so IN S v. Card oz a- Fo nse ca , 480 U . S. 421 , 450 ( 1987 ) (“ Co ngr es s did not int en d to r es tr ic t e lig ibi lity f or [ as y lum ] to tho se w ho c oul d pr ove that i t i s m or e lik el y

than no t tha t the y

w ill be pe rs ec ute d if

de porte d. ”) . A n a

ppl ic an t w ho ha s de m onstrate d pa st p er se cu tio n is pr es um ed to ha ve aw el l- fo unde d f ear of fu tur e pe rs ec uti on. 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (1 ). T hat pr es um pti on c anbe r eb utt ed

if the IJ finds that there has been a “ fundam ental change in circum stances” such that the f ear is n o lo nge r w el l- fo unde d, or that the appl ic an t c ansa fe ly r el oc at e w ith inB e c a us e the B IA i n th is c a se fo un d th at Me jia ha d n ot s ho wn

pe rs e c uti on

or a we ll- 5 fo un de d f e ar o f p e rs e c uti on , it

did no t r e a c h “ the iss ue of

wh e the r t he re sp on de nt c ou ld s a fe ly reside e lsewher e in Colombia.” We note also that Mejia cor roborated his testimony

by submitt ing police repor

ts and a 6 hospital report, a lthough ne ither docume nt was authe nticated. 8 the c ountry

of na tio na lity . I d. A lth oughthe I N A it se lf doe s no t de fi ne 5

“ pe rs ec uti on, ” w e ha ve r ec ogni ze d th at pr ovi ng p er se cu tio n r equir es “ m or e than a fe wiso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n . . . . ” G onz al ez v. Ren o, 2 12 F.3d 13 38 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e be ginby

not ing that, a s th e gove rn m en t c onc ed ed a t or al a rg um en t, the IJ in this case m ade no adverse cr edibilit y finding. W e re quire IJs to m ake “ clean de te rm inatio ns o f cr ed ibi lity . ” Y an g v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 418 F . 3d 1 198, 120 1 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citation om itted); see also id. (“ Though the IJ m ade a refe rence to Yang’ s claim s as a ‘ ridiculous fabrication’ and stated that her te sti m ony w as ‘ ex tr em el y

inc onsi ste nt and [ m ad e] absol ute ly no s en se wh at s o ev er ,’ we ar e n o tp er s u ad ed t h at t h i s wa s an ex p l i ci tfi n d i n g t h at Ya n g ’s te sti m ony w as not c re dib le . ”) . A s w e not ed in Fo rg ue , I Js m

ust a lso pr ovi de

“ spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons f or a n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing . ” 401 F. 3d at12 87. T he IJ did not do so here, and thu s we acce pt Mej ia’ s testim ony as cre dible. 6 T he que sti on b ef

or e us, the n, is w he the r, a s am atte r of law , w ha t M ej ia endured constit utes past persecution, and we f ind th at it does. Me

j ia rec eivedOur re cent de cision in J imenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen. make s clea

r that an attack ca

n be 7 “phy sical” a

nd constitute a for

m of perse cution even if

the intended tar g et of the attack is not actua lly struck by the attac ker’ s projectile. Jim enez,492 F.3d 1223, 1233- 34 (11th Cir. 2007) (holdingthat petitioner “suf fer ed past pe rsec ution when two FA RC members on motorcycles followed him and intentionally shot at him in hi s moving c ar” even though the shooters missed; and that the I J err ed by

focusingon whether

petitioner wa s “phy sically harme d”). 9 thr eats and atte m

pte d a tta ck s ov er

a n 18 m onth pe ri od, w hic h c ulm inate d w he n he and Cam argo we re stopped on a roadway by three arm ed m em

bers of the FA RC, w ho thr eate ne d M ej iaa t gunpoi nt, thr ewhim to the gr ound , a nd s m as he d hi m in the face with the butt of a rifle , bre aking hi s nose. Pr ior to that, a lar ge rock w as thr ow n a t hi m

dur ing aL ibe ra l P ar

ty -s pons or ed

soc ce r ga m e, a nd C am ar go rece ived a threatening telephon e call f rom the FA RC im

m ediately after the attack at the soc ce r ga m e. T he se dir ec t a tta ck s w er e ac co m panie d by thr eats, inc lud ing 7 FA RC gr af

fi ti at Cam ar go’ s f

ar m w hic h sp ec if

ic al ly nam ed Me j ia , asub se que nt co ndol en ce le tte r that r ef er en ce d hi s sure de ath, a nd thr eate nin g ph one c al ls h is m ot he r rec ei ve d a fte r he lef t Co lo m bi a. Whil e a “ fe wiso la te d in ci de nts of ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n” do n ot de m onstrate pa st p er se cu tio n, G onz al ez , 212 F . 3d at 13 55 ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ), the thr eats and atta ck s th e pe tit ion er s su ff er ed w er e ne ith er

“ iso la te d” nor

sim ply

“ harassm ent.” Mej ia w as phy sically attacked tw ice: once w hen a large r ock was thr ow n a t hi m

a nd o nc e w he n m em

be rs of the F A RC poi nte d aguna t hi s he ad a nd the n br oke his nos e w iththe butt of ar if le . G ive n th es e phy sic al a ssa ult s, the10

verbal threats Mej ia and his wife r eceived cannot be considered “ isolated.” In as se ssi ng p as t pe rs ec uti on w e ar e re qui re d to c onsi de r the c um ulativ e im

pa ct of the m istreatm ent the petition ers suffe red. Ruiz v. G onzales, __ F. 3d __ , 2007 U. S. App. L E X IS 369 9, a t *1 1 ( 11th C ir . F eb . 20, 200 7) . C onsi de ri ng the c um ulativ e ef fe ct s of the e sc al at ing thr eats and atta ck s, w e co nc lud e that M ej iasuf fe re d pa st persecution. D elgado v. U. S. Att’ y Ge n., 487 F.3d 855, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2007). T he I J inthi s c as e m ad e no f ind ing r eg ar din g th e se co nd p ro ng o f the pe rs ec uti on que sti on—

w he the r the m istre atm en t M ej iasuf fe re d w as “ on a cc ount of ” h is po li ti cal op in io n. Be cau se ne it he r th e IJ no r th e BIA re ach edth is is su e, we re m an d f or ade te rm inatio n inthe f

ir st i nst an ce . S ee L ope z v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 490 F.3 d 1 31 2, 1 31 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . A cc or din gly , the BI A ’ s de ci sio n is VA CA TED a nd REM AN DED f or furthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt h er ew ith .