FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 13, 2006 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. 06- 12133 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 97- 636- 037 & A 97- 636- 038 D I E G O A L E X A N D E R C A M P I N O G I R A L D O , M A U R E N D A L I L A C A S T R O A L V A R E Z , M A R I A J O S E C A M P I N O C A S T R O , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Campino’s wife a nd daughter a

re derivative benefic iaries of Campino’s claims for relief. 1 Acc ording ly, only

Campino is mentioned in referenceto these claims. Be causethe B IA summarily aff irmed the IJ without a

n opinion, we review the IJ ’s dec ision. 2 See Ya ngv. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 418 F .3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). Campino does not argue that the IJerred in deny

ing relief under the CAT. Acc ordingly, he has a bandoned theissue. Huangv. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 429 F .3d 1002, 1007 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 C ol om bi a n na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns D i e go A l e xa nde rC a m pi no G i r a l do ( “C a m p in o ” ) , h is w if

e , M au r e n D a lilaC a s tr o A lv a r e z , a n dth e irs e v e n - y e a ro ld daught e r , M a r i aJ os e C a m pi no C a s tr o, s e e k r e vi e w of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) d ec isio n af firm in g , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s ( “ I J ” ) o r d e rf

i n d i n g th e m r e mo v ab l e a n dd e n y i n g th e i rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( “ C A T ” ) . O n appe a l , C a m pi no a r gue s tha tthe I Je rr e d i n de ny i ng a s y l um a nd

1 w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l b e c au s e h e d e m o n s tr a te dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n a n daw e llfoun ded fearof pers ec ut i on base d o n h i s pol i t i ca l op i ni on , i m pu t ed or otherw i se . 2 F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f

o rth m o r e f

u llyb e lo w , w e d e n yth e p e titio n . W e r e v ie w f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s u s in g th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. F orgu e v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e w i l l af fi rm i f the de c i s i on “ i s s upport e d byr e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on th e r e c o r d c o n s id e r e d a s aw h o le .” I d . ( c ita tio n a n dq u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . W e r e vi e w the r e c or d e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on a nd3

draw al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of thatdeci si on . Id. T o con cl ud e thatthe IJ shou l d b e r ever se d, w e “ m ustfi nd thatthe re cord no ton l y s up po rt s that c o n c lu s io n , b u t c o m p e ls it.” F a h im v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 2 7 8 F .3 d1 2 1 6 , 1 2 1 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t at i on and q uo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). “ [T ] he m er e f ac tthatthe re cord m a ys upportac ontr a ryc onc l us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f yar e ve r s a l of

the adm i ni stra t i ve fi nd i ng s. ” A defe m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( en b an c) , cer t. d en ied , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 0 3 5 (2 0 0 5 ). T o th e e x ten t th e I J’s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, r e vi e w i s de novo. M oha m m e d v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T he A tt orne yG e ne r a l orthe S e c r e t a ryof H om e l a nd S e c ur i tyha s di s c r e t i on t o g r a n ta s y l u m i f

a n a l i e n me e t s th e I N A ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f a“ r e f u g e e . ” Se e 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is : a n yp e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n yc o u n tryo f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity

. . . a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e or un w i l l i ng t o avai l hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun try be c aus e of

pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on ac coun tof ra 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 rp o litic a l o p in io n . . . . 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ; I N A § 101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntc a rr i e s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory“ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus . A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). In o rd er t o carry th i s b u rd en , th e al i en m u stest ab l i sh (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed4

f e a r ” th a tth e s t a tu t o r i l yl i s t e d f a c t o rw i l l c au s e f

u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 13 (a ), (b); S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 2005) . T he appl i c a ntm us tpr e s e nt“ s pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng agood r e a s on t o fear thathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof” aprot ec t ed gr ound. A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe on a c c ountof C a m pi no’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, w he the ra c tua l or i m p u t ed , an d n o tth e b el i efs o r o p i n i o n s o f h i s p ersecu t o rs. S ee I. N . S . v . E l i asZ a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 482, 112 S . C t . 812, 816, 117 L . E d. 2d 38 ( 1992) ( hol di ng tha tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof pol i t i c a l opi ni on i s “ pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof the vi c t i m ’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, notthe pe r s e c ut or ’ s ” ) ; S a nc he z v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng tha tthe pe t i t i one rm us te s t abl i s h pa s tor f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e of hi s a c tua l ori m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on) . “ I ti s not enou gh t o sho w that[he] w as or w i l l be pers ec ut ed or t ortured du e t o [hi s] re fusa l t o c oope r a t e . . . . ” S a nc he z , 392 F . 3d a t438. “ ‘ [ A ] n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, w hether c orre ct l y or i ncorrec t l y a ttri bu t ed, ’ m ayconst i tut e agrou nd for a

‘ we l l - f o u n d e d f e a r ’ o f p o l i t i c a l p e r s e c u t i o n wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f th e I NA . ” Al N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1289 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ A n a s y l um appl i c a ntm a ypr e va i l on ath e o ryo f

‘im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n ’ if h e s h o w s th a t th e ‘[ p ]e r s e c u to rf a ls e ly attri bu t e[ d] an op i ni on t o [hi m ] , and then p er se cut e[ d] [hi m ] because of that m i st aken bel i ef

abou t[hi s] vi ew s. ’ ” I d. (c i t at i on s and qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).5

T o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i tyf orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A , the appl i c a ntm us ts how tha thi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d ba s e d on a p r o te c te d g r o u n d . R u iz v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 4 0 F .3 d1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .

“ T he bu rden of proo f f

or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , ho w ever , i s ‘ m ore l i kel y than not , ’ a nd, thus , i s ‘ m or e s tr i nge nt ’ tha n the s t a nda r d f ora s y l um r e l i e f

. ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A n appl i c a ntw ho f a i l s t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um on the m er i t s nec es sari l y f

ai l s t o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . F orgu e, 401 F . 3d a t1288 n. 4. C a m pi no, w ho w a s ac a s hi e ra taba nk, appl i e d f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a l l e gi ng tha tm e m be r s of the R e vol ut i ona ryA rm e d F or c e s of C o lo m b ia( “F A R C ” ) s o u g h t to o b ta in in f o rm a tio n ab o u t b a n kc u s to m e r s f r o m h im . C am pi no t es t i fi ed re gardi ng a s er i es of threa t s and other i nci dent s di re ct ed at h im s e lf a n d h is f a m ilyb yth e F A R C , b e g in n in g ab o u t f o u rm o n th s a f

te rh is w a lle t, w h ic h c o n ta in e d ac a r d c e rtif y in g th a t h e w o rk e da t th e b a n k , w a s s to le n . C a m pi no de s c r i be d the f ol l ow i ng e ve nt s : O n S e pt e m be r8, 2002, he r e c e i ve d a thr e a t e ni ng l e tt e rf

r om the F A R C , s i gne d byaC om m a nde rP a di l l a , r e que s t i ng c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a tio n ab o u t b a n kc lie n ts . T h e le tte rin f o rm e dh im th a t if

h e d id n o tc o o p e r a t e th i n g s wo u l d g o “ v e ryb a d l y ” f o rh i m s e l f

a n dh i s f a m i l y . On S e p te m b e r2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , u p o n le a v in g th e b a n k , P a d illac o n f r o n te dh im , a s k e dh im if h e h a d d e c i d e d t o c o o p e r a t e , a n d th r e a t e n e dt o h u rth i s d au g h t e ri f h e r e f u s e d . On6

O c to b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , a s h e w a s p ic k in g u p h is d au g h te rf r o m s c h o o l, P a d illaa g a in appr oa c he d hi m , a s ke d abouthi s daught e r , a nd a ga i n t ol d C a m pi no tha t , f orthe g o o d o f h is f a m ily , C a m p in o h a d to “d o th e w o rk ,” w h ic h h e u n d e r s to o dm e a n t to g iv e th e m th e r e q u e s te d b a n kin f o rm a tio n . O n N o v e m b e r5 , 2 0 0 2 , h e r e m o v e dh is daught e rf

r om s c hool be c aus e pe opl e unc onne c t e d t o hi s f a m i l yw e r e a s ki ng que s t i ons abouthi s daught e r . O n D e c e m be r27, 2002, he r e c e i ve d athr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l . F i na l l y , on J a nua ry9, 2003, a s he w a s dr i vi ng hom e f r om the ba nk, P a d illab e g a n f

o llo w in g h im o n am o to r c y c le a n d , a s P a d illap a s s e dh im , P a d illa f ir e d tw o s h o ts in to th e h o o d o f h is c a r . H e r e c e iv e da n o th e rth r e a te n in g p h o n e c a ll tha tni ght . C a m pi no the n t ook hi s f a m i l yt o hi s m othe r - i n- l a w ’ s hous e , w he r e he s t a y e d w i thouti nc i de ntunt i l he l e f tC ol om bi ai n A pr i l 2003. A m ong othe rr e a s ons , the I Jde ni e d a s y l um on the gr ound tha tC a m pi no fa il ed to es tab li sh an y n ex u s to an y o f th e p ro tected g ro u n d s b ec au se th e F A R C ’s onl ym ot i va t i on w a s t o obt a i n f i na nc i a l i nf

orm a t i on aboutthe ba nk’ s c l i e nt s . T he I Jf urthe rf ound tha tC a m pi no di d nots ubm i ta de qua t e e vi de nc e f r om w hi c h he coul d fi nd thatthe F A R C ’ s i nt er es tw as on ac coun tof C am pi no ’ s i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on . B ec ause C am pi no di d n otes t abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty, the IJfoun d that h e , th e r e f

o r e , d idn o t m e e t th e h ig h e rs ta n d a r df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. C a m p in o c o n te n d s th a t th e d e n ia l o f h is c la im s w a s in e rr o r , a r g u in g th a t h is r e f u s a l to p r o v id e th e F A R C w ith a c c e s s to b a n kr e c o r d s im p u te dto h im a n a n ti-7

F A R C p o litic a l o p in io n , a n d th a t th e F A R C ta r g e te dh im b e c au s e o f it. T he IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatC am pi no fa i l ed t o est abl i sh pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. C am pi no ’ s t es t i m on y that the F A R C i ni t i a l l yappr oa c he d hi m aboutthe ba nk r e c or ds a nd thr e a t e ne d hi m i f he w o u l d n o tc o o p e r a t e , a s w e l l a s h i s b e l i e f th a th e w a s a n e n e myo f th e FA RC be c aus e he di d notdo w ha tthe yw a nt e d, pr ovi de s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n s upportof the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe F A R C ’ s onl y m ot i vat i on w as t o o bt ai n fi nanci al in f o rm a tio n ab o u t th e b a n k ’s c lie n ts . P e r s e c u tio n d u e to C a m p in o ’s r e f u s a l to coop er at e w i th the F A R C i s notpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . S ee R u iz, 4 4 0 F .3 d at 1 2 5 8 (“[E ]v id en ce th at . . . i s c o n sisten t w ith . . . th e p etit io n er ’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 . . . 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 as t a tut or i l ypr ot e c t e d gr ound” ) ; S a nc he z , 392 F . 3d a t438. N or do es the re cord com pel the concl usi on thatthe F A R C bel i eved that C a m pi no’ s r e f

us a l t o c oope r a t e w a s pol i t i c a l l yba s e d a s no m e nt i on w a s m a de of C a m p in o b e in g p e r c e iv e d a s a n ti- F A R C , a n dth e o n lyr e a s o n C a m p in o g a v e f o rh is b e lie f th a t h e w a s a n e n e m yo f th e F A R C w a s h is r e f

u s a l to c o o p e r a te . A cco rd i n g l y, th e IJ’ s d en i al o f asyl u m i s su p p o rt ed b y su b st an t i al ev i d en ce. A s a r e s u lt, C a m p in o a ls o f

a ile d to e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 8 n .4 . I n lig h t o f th e f o r e g o in g , th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w is DE NI E D.