FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 13, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1511 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI AN o. A 79- 443- 613 JUAN DIEGO GONZA LEZ-PEREZ, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J ul y 13 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pe tit ion er Juan D ie go G onz al ez -P er ez ( Pe re z) , ana tiv e an d c iti ze n of Co lom bia , pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the de ci sio n of

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion2

Appe al s ( BI A ), w hic h a ff irm ed w ith out opi nio n th e im

m igr at ionj udge ’ s ( IJ ’ s) denial of Pere z’ s claim s for asy lum and for w ithho lding of rem oval, and for r elief unde r the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e (C A T ). W e de ny the pe tit ion . T he I J de nie d P er ez ’ s pe tit ionbe ca use he f ound that P er ez w as not

c re dib le an d t ha t, ev en if h e was cred ib le , he f ai le d t o d em on st rat e h e was pe rs ecu te d. Pe re z ar gue s th at

the I J e rr ed

in de ny ing him

r el ie f be ca

use he w as pe rs ec ute d on ac co unt of his pol iti ca l op ini on b y

the Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lom bia (FA RC). Pere z claim ed that he wa s a w aiter, cashier, and reser vation b ooker for a banquet com

pany that cater ed politi cal events. In N ovem ber 2001, while P erez w as tr av el ing to pr ep ar e fo r one of the se e ve nts , he w as sto ppe d by tw o tr uc ks bearing heavily -arm ed m en in m ilitary uniform s, who ident ified them selves as FA RC m em

bers. These m en interrogated Per ez f or about 15 m inutes, obtained pe rs ona l i nf

orm at ionabout

him and h is f am ily , r el ea se d hi m , and f oll ow ed him to the banquet lo cation, where P erez prepare d the banqu et as planned. Abouta w eek la te r, he be gan r ec ei vin g te n c al ls p er day f or thr ee day s f

ro m F A RC m em

be rs w ho thr eate ne d hi m

and a ske d hi m

to pr ovi de inf

orm at ionabout

the or ganiz er s and atte nde es of

the banque t. D ur ing the la st c al l, P er ez w as w ar ne d th at , if

he did notThe B IA af firmed the IJ ’s dec ision withouto p i n i o n: we re view the I J ’s dec ision as the final 1 ag ency deter mination. See Forgue v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1285 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 3 co ope rate , he and h is f

am ily w oul d f ac e “ co nse que nc es . ” A nd a bout tw o w ee ks af te r the banque t, P er ez w as c onf ro nte d by am anw ho thr eate ne d to kil l hi m if he did not c oope rate . P er ez c ont en ds tha t tw o f ac e- to- fa ce thr eats and thr ee day s of te le ph on e cal ls by the FARC ri se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . W e rev ie w th e IJ ’s fin di ng s o f fact un de r th e “ su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce” t es t: we m ust a ff irm the I J’ s de ci sio n “ if

it is supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , and pr obativ e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 3 -8 4 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t at i o no m i t t ed ). “ To re v er s e t h e I J ’s 1 fa ct f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the r ec or d no t on ly

sup ports r ev er sa l, but

c om pe ls i t .” Me n d o za v . U. S. At t o rn ey Ge n ., 3 2 7 F. 3 d1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ). We also review the IJ’ s credibility determ ination s under the “ subs tantial evidence” te st . D-Mu hu m edv. U.S. Att orne y Gen., 3 88 F.3d81 4, 8 18 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A nd o n c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns, w e m ay

not sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t f

or that of the IJ. Id. An a dverse cre dibil ity determ ination alone m ay be sufficient to suppo rt the de nia l of

a sy lum r el ie f. S ee F or gue v. U . S. A tto rn ey G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 1287 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . B ut “ ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n do es not al le viate the I J’ s du ty

to co nsi de r oth er

e vid en ce pr oduc ed

by an a sy lum ap pli cant. ” I d.4

An alien m ay

obtain asy lum

if he is a “ refugee” : a person unwilling to return to h is c ountry

of na tio na lity

“be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of persecution on accountof,” am ong o ther things , political opinio n. 8 U .S .C. §§ 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ), 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity

ba se d on pol iti ca l op ini on o r an oth er pr ote ct ed

gr ound , the a lie n m

ust -- w ithc re dib le ev ide nc e- -e sta

bli sh ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of he r pol iti ca l op ini on o r an oth er pr ote ct ed

gr ound , or

( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that he r pol iti ca l op ini on o r another protected ground will cause future persec ution . See Sepulveda v. U .S . Attorney Ge n., 401 F.3d 1226 , 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (c iting 8 C.F .R. § 208 .13(a) , ( b)). Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio ns tha t P er ez w as not credible and that, e ven if he w as cre dible, that he failed to establish that he was persecuted. Per ez’ s testim ony on his ti m e of em

ploym ent with the banquet co m pany c onf lic te d w iththe doc um en tary e vid en ce that he sub m itt ed . About the da te on whic h he le ft

Co lom bia , P er ez ’ s te sti m ony

w as int er na lly inc onsi ste nt and conflicted with docum entary evidence. An inconsistency exists between when Pere z stated that his troub les with FA RC began (N ovem ber 2001) and when Pere z’s fat he r, in a supp or ti ng let te r, st at edth atth e tr ou bl es be ga n (J an ua ry 19 95 ). Ina ddi tio n, P er ez ’ s te sti m ony and a sy lum

appl ic at ionare inc onsi ste nt w ith5

doc um en tary

e vid en ce about

w he the r he w as a lon e an d, if not , w ho w as w ithhim
w he n he w as sto ppe d by

the arm ed

F A RC m em

be rs . T he se inc onsi ste nc ie s go to ke y e le m en ts o f Pe re z’ s c la im s th at he w as pe rs ec ute d by

F A RC . S ee G ao v. A shc ro ft , 299 F . 3d 2 66, 272 ( 3d C ir . 200 2) ( statin g th at a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing
m ust go t o th e “ he ar

t” of the a sy lum

c la im and s houl d no t be ba se d onm ino r inconsi stencies). W e al so d oubt

that the tw o f

ac e- to- fa ce e nc ount er s and s ev er al day s of phon e calls am ountto persecution. See Sepulveda, 401 F. 3d at 123 1 (stating th at

“pe rs ec uti on i s an e xtr em e co nc ep t, r equir ing m or e than af ew iso la te d in ci de nts of ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, ” an d th at

“ m er e hara ssm en t do es not a m ount to pe rs ec uti on” ). I n a ddi tio n, w e se e no e vid en ce li nki ng P er ez ’ s po lit ic al vie w s to the F A RC thr eats. I nst ea d, P er ez ’ s c la im is that the F A RC thr eats w er e ba se d on his refusal to cooperate w ith FARC requests for inform ation abou t banquet atte nde es . B ut “ [i ] t i s no t e noug h to sho wthat [ he ] w as or w ill be pe rs ec ute d or tortured due to [his] r efusal to cooperate w ith the gu erillas. ” Sanchez v. U .S . Attorney Ge n., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). T hese fac ts do no t com pel re ve rs al . A nd b ec au se the bur de n of pr oof f or an a ppl ic an t se ek ing w ith hol din g of re m ova l and C A T r el ie f is h igh er than th e bur de n im

pose d onan a sy lum

appl ic an t,6

we upho ld the IJ’ s denial of withholdi ng of rem oval and CAT relief . See Forgue, 401 F. 3d at 12 88 n . 4; A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 92- 93. Pe re z al so arg ue s th at

the BI Avio late d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts b y a ff irm ing th e IJ ’s dec is io n wi th ou t o pi ni on . W e rev ie w hi s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e d e n ov o. Lony em v. U .S . A ttorney

Ge n., 352 F.3d 1338 , 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). P erez cites to no record evidence showing that the BIA f ailed to follow its regulations or that he w as pr ej udi ce d su

bst an tia lly

by the BI A ’ s a ff

irm an ce . T he re fo re , P er ez ’ s du e pr oc es s c la im

is w ith out

m er it. S ee L ony em , 352 F . 3d at 13 42. W e, thu s, co nc lud e that the BI A ’ s sum m ar y a ff irm an ce of

the I J’ s de ci sio n vi olate d no ne of Pe re z’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts. PE TITION DEN IED .