FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 11, 2007 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. 07- 11253 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 198- 263 M A R B I H E S N E I D E R H E N A O , P e titio n e r ,

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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 11, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We rejec t the g overnment’s asser tion on appeal that Henao’s a sylum and withholding of 1 removal claims should be dismiss ed for lack of jurisdiction as unexhausted or aba ndoned. However, weagreethat Henao did not exhaust his claims for re lief to the extent they were predic ated on his member ship in a particular social group. See Amaya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (discussingthat an appe llate cour t lacks jurisdic tio n toc on side r a

n une xha us te d c laim) . There fo re , w edis mis s in pa rt Henao’ s p e tition

to the extent he argues that he w as per secute d based on his member ship in a particular social group. Henao has aba

ndoned his CAT claim by failingto raise this argument on appeal Irwin v. Ha wk, 40 F.3d 347, 347, n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (notingthat a litiga nt abandons a

n issue by failingto challeng e it on appeal). 2 M arb i H es n eid erH en ao se ek s r ev iew o f a B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’s (“ B IA ’ s” ) dec i si on af

fi rm i ng , w i tho utop i ni on , an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) or de rf i ndi ng hi m r e m ovabl e a nd de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , and rel i ef un der the U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, or D e g r a d i n g Tr e a tme n to rPu n i s h me n t( “ CA T” ) , 8 U . S. C. § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 , 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 16 (c )) . O n app ea l , H enao argues thatsubst ant i al evi dence does notsupp ort the I J ’ s f i ndi ngs tha tH e na o f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um orf

or w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l ba s e d on hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 1 W e c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatH enao f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , b u t w e r e m a n d th is c a s e to th e B I A to c o n s id e rth e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o f a ll th e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d a n d th e in c id e n ts to w h ic h H e n a o te s tif

ie d a t h is a s y lu m h e a r in g in s u p p o r t o f h is c la im o f

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 if

h e w e r e r e m o v e d to C o lo m b ia . B e c a u s e it is u n c le a ra t th is tim e w h e th e rH e n a o m a y b e e n title d to a s y lu m r e lie f in th a t r e s p e c t,The administrative record contains two sepa rateref erences to the murder of Henao’s 2 cousin, in addition to Henao’s te stimony at the removal proce eding s. See Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, AR at 146; Credible F ear InterviewNotes, id. at 87. 3 w e de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tH e na o f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f or wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l . Fo rth e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we DI SM I SS I N PART, D E N Y IN P A R T , G R A N T IN P A R T , and R E M A N D H enao’ s pet i t i on t o the B IA f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. I . B AC KG RO UN D H e na o e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 2002 f r om M e de l l i n, C ol om bi a , a s a nonim m ig r a n t v is ito rw ith a u th o r iz a tio n to r e m a in u n til 2 6 M a r c h 2 0 0 3 . I n A p r il 20 03 , af t erre m ai ni ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es beyond the t i m e autho ri ze d, H enao fi l ed an appl i ca t i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al base d o n h i s pol i t i ca l op i ni on and m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p. H e a l so soug htC A T re l i ef . I n hi s appl i c a t i on, H e na o a l l e ge d tha the ha d be e n a n a c t i ve m e m be rof the C o n se rv ativ e P ar ty sin ce 1 9 9 6 an d w o rk ed o n p o li ti ca l cam p aig n s o f th at p ar ty’s c a ndi da t e s . H e na o s t a t e d tha t , be c a us e of the s e a c t i vi t i e s , he r e c e i ve d thr e a t e ni ng t el epho ne ca l l s a nd l ett er s f rom gu er i l l as as soci at ed w i th the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F or c e s of

C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ” ) , a nd w a s s hota ton the s tr e e tby tw o m e n on a m ot orcy cl e. H enao al so no t ed thathi s brother- i n-l aw , Just o P as t or Q ui nt er o C ar do na, and h i s c ou si n, A l dem arA gu del o, w er e a ss as si nat ed by F A R C gu er i l l as b ecau se o f th ei r p art i ci p at i o n i n C o n serv at i v e P arty p o l i t i cs an d cam p ai g n s. 24

A s y l um of

f i c i a l s c onduc t e d a c r e di bl e f e a ri nt e r vi e w i n J ul y 2003. T he I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tu r a liz a tio n S e r v ic e ( “I N S ” ) s u b s e q u e n tly is s u e d a n o tic e to appe a r( “ N T A ” ) t o H e na o, c ha r gi ng hi m w i th de por t abi l i ty unde rthe I N A f or re m ai ni ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es for at i m e l on ger than p erm i tt ed. A ta pre l i m i nary hear i ng before an IJ , H enao adm i tt ed the al l egat i on s i n the N T A , conceded re m ov abi l i ty, and ackno w l edged thathe w as no tst atut ori l y e l i gi bl e f or vo l un t ary departure. I n N ove m be r2005, H e na o, thr ough hi s a tt orne y , s ubm i tt e d s uppor t i ng doc um e nt s , i nc l udi ng, a m ong othe r s : ( a ) a not a r i z e d de a th c e r t i f i c a t e f orC a r dona i nd i ca t i ng thathe di ed on 28 Jul y 199 7, and the m ai n cause of death w as re spi ra t ory hea rtfa i l ure; (b) ano t ar i ze d l ett erfr om the S ec re t ary of the S an V i ncent e M un i ci pal i ty i nd i ca t i ng thatC ar do na w as ac tual l y m urdered by “ i l l egal gr oups ” on 29 J ul y 1997, A R a t88, 93; ( c ) anot a r i z e d de a th c e r t i f i c a t e f or A gu del o sho w i ng thathe di ed of un spec i fi ed causes on 2 Jun e 200 2; and (d) a go od behavi or ce rt i fi ca t e f rom a l ocal C ol om bi an po l i ce i nspect or ce rt i fy i ng that H e n a o h a d n o t b e e n a c c u s e d o f a n y c r im e s o rp o lic e v io la tio n s in C o lo m b ia . H e na o f ur the rs ubm i tt e d a l oc a l pol i c e r e por t , da t e d 4 S e pt e m be r2002, s how i ng tha the i nf

or m e d C ol om bi a n pol i c e tha the f ound a de a th thr e a tf

r om the F A R C w hen h e a rr i ved t o w ork o n 3 0 A ug ust20 02 . A cc ordi ng t o the po l i ce re po rt , H enao expl ai ned thatthe l ett erw arned h i m no tt o p art i ci pat e i n el ec t oral5

ca m pai gn s, and i nform ed hi m thatthi s w ou l d b e hi s l as tw arni ng . H enao i nd i ca t ed tha the ha d r e c e i ve d tw e l ve pr i orw a rni ngs , a nd he a l s o not e d tha thi s br othe r - i nla w h a d b e e n a s s a s s in a te d b y th e F A R C b e c a u s e h e w a s a lo c a l c o u n c ilm a n . I n D e c e m b e r2 0 0 5 , a n I J h e a r d , a n d d e n ie d , H e n a o ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rr e lie f . I n s uppor tof

hi s c l a i m of

pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, H e na o t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s t a r ge t e d by the F A R C be c a us e of

c e r t a i n pol i t i c a l a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng: ( a ) s e r vi ng i n the C ol om bi a n a r m y f

ore i ght e e n m onths , f

r om 1994 unt i l 1995; ( b) j oi ni ng the C o n s e r v a tiv e p a r ty ; a n d ( c ) w o r k in g f o rh is b r o th e r - in - la w , C a r d o n a , a C on se rvat i ve P arty c ou nci l m an, af t ergraduat i ng fr om hi gh sc ho ol i n 1 99 6. H enao as se rt ed thatthe F A R C se nthi m approx i m at el y t en t o tw el ve threa t eni ng l ett er s ov era f i ve or si x year per i od (he l as tre ce i ved a l ett eron 30 A ug ust20 02 ), and that F A R C g u e r illa s c a lle d h is h o u s e to th r e a te n h im o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s io n s . H enao al so t es t i fi ed thattw o g un m en tri ed t o m urder hi m i n S ept em ber 2 0 0 2 . He e x p l a i n e d th a t , a s h e e x i t e d a t a x i a n d wa l k e d t o wa r d s h i s h o u s e , two m en si tt i ng on a run ni ng m ot orcy cl e a cr oss the stre etca l l ed hi s nam e a nd pu l l ed ou tgu ns as he turned t ow ar ds them . H enao ran fr om the gu nm en i nt o an o pen hous e , a nd he he a r d tw o s hot s f i r e d. A f t e re s c api ng thr ough the ba c k doorof the ho use, he ra n t o a fr i end’ s hou se , and l at erfl ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es . H enao t es t i fi ed thathe di d n otkn ow w ho the i nd i vi du al s w er e, bu tpres um ed they w er e F A R C g u e r illa s b e c a u s e o f th e le tte r s th a t h e h a d r e c e iv e d f r o m th e F A R C .6

In supp ortof hi s w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on cl ai m , H enao t es t i fi ed r e ga r di ng thr e e vi ol e ntc r i m e s a ga i ns tm e m be r s of hi s f a m i l y , the a s s a s s i na t i ons of hi s br othe r - i n- l a w , C a r dona , a nd hi s c ous i n, A gude l o, a nd the ki dnapi ng a nd mu r d e ro f

h i s n e p h e w . A f

t e rCa r d o n a w a s k i l l e d , H e n a o t e s t i f i e d th a tFA RC gu er i l l as re turned t o the C ar do na ho m e i n 2 00 4 l oo ki ng for H enao, and w arned C ar do na’ s w i fe thati f s he di d n ott el l them w here H enao w as hi di ng , they w er e goi ng t o ki dnap he rs on. C a r dona ’ s w i f e appa r e nt l y di d notc om pl y w i th the g u e r illa s ’ d e m a n d , s o th e y f o r c ib ly k id n ap e d h e rs o n , w h o w a s la te rf o u n d s h o t to d e a th . H e n a o d id n o t h a v e h is n e p h e w ’s d e a th c e r tif ic a te , th o u g h , b e c a u s e h is s is te rc o u ld n o t g o to th e to w n w h e r e h e rc h ild w a s k ille d . R egar di ng H enao’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um base d o n p as tpers ec ut i on , the IJ f o u n d th a t it w a s “v e ry h a r d to b e lie v e ” th a t H e n a o , a s “a f o r m e rm ilita ry m a n ,” w o u l d h av e b een i n t i m i d at ed b y th e th reat en i n g l ett ers an d t el ep h o n e cal l s, b ecau se H enao’ s s i st er , no the, had answ er ed these ca l l s. A R at37 . A l so, the IJdi sc ou nt ed th e th r e a te n in g le tte r s f

r o m th e F A R C , n o tin g th a t m e n a c in g le tte r s d o n o t r is e to the l evel of pastpers ec ut i on . T he IJdi d n otaddres s the att em pton H enao’ s l i fe w h e n e x p la in in g h is c o n c lu s io n th a t H e n a o h a d n o t s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . In concl ud i ng thatH enao fai l ed t o sho w a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , the IJfoun d “ i m pl ausi bl e” H enao’ s t es t i m on y thathe heard the vo i ce s of the tw o m en w ho shotathi m ov era run ni ng m ot orcy cl e e ng i ne, and thathe w as7

abl e t o “ outrun the bul l e ta nd ... go i nt o, c onve ni e nt l y , a n ope n hous e a nd the n ... l ea ve w i tho utthese i nd i vi du al s pursui ng hi m . ” I d. at35 -36. A l t ernat i vel y, the IJ f ound tha t , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tthi s t e s t i m ony w a s true , H e na o m e r e l y s pe c ul a t e d – b a s e d o n th e l e tt e r s th a th e h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m th e F AR C –th a tth e s e two i n d i v i d u al s w ere F A R C g u eri l l as w h o i n t en d ed t o k i l l h i m b ecau se o f h i s p ast p o li ti ca l i n v o lv em en t w ith th e C o n se rv ativ e P ar ty. T h e I J f o u n d th at H en ao ’s t es t i m on y w as t oo spec ul at i ve t o est abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n , b u t th e I J d id n o t m a k e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . A l though the I J di d notc l e a r l y a ddr e s s the r e qui r e m e nttha tthe r e be a ne xus betw ee n H enao’ s pol i t i ca l op i ni on and act i vi ty a nd the threa t s a nd vi ol ence di re ct ed t ow ar d h i m , the IJal so foun d as s pecul at i ve and n otsuff i ci ent l y det ai l ed H enao’ s t es t i m on y thathi s i nv ol vem enti n the C on se rvat i ve P arty, hi s a ss i st ance w ith h is b r o th e r - in - la w ’s d u tie s o rc a m p a ig n s , a n d h is b r o th e r - in - la w ’s d e a th

“ st em [m ed ] w i th th reat en i n g l ett ers th ato ccu rred th ereafter, n o n e o f w h i ch [th e IJ] ha[d] before [hi m ] . . . , or an i nci dentof an al l eged shoo t i ng , i n [H enao’ s] general di re ct i on , i n S ept em ber of 200 2. ” I d. at36 . In expl ai ni ng hi s c on cl usi on that H enao fai l ed t o d em on stra t e aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on , the IJdi sc usse d n e i th e rH e n a o ’ s t e s t i mo n y th a th i s n e p h e w w a s k i d n ap e d a n d mu r d e r e d b y FA RC g u eri l l as, n o r h i s t est i m o n y th ath i s co u si n w as m u rd ered b y th e F A R C . F i n al l y, the I J f ound tha t , be c a us e H e na o f a i l e d t o m e e tthe l ow e rthr e s hol d f ora s y l umThe IJnoted that Henao was not elig ible for CAT relief be causethe FARC was not part 3 of theCol omb ian g ov e rnment. 8 r e lie f , h e w a s n o t e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. 3 H e n a o f ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l w ith th e B I A . H e n a o a s s e r te d th a t th e I J e rr e d in de ny i ng hi m r e l i e f

be c a us e he “ e xpos e [ d] [ hi s ] pol i t i c a l i de a s w i th the C on se rvat i ve P arty, ” buthe di d n otm ent i on hi s m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al gr oup. I d. a t13. H e na o s ubm i tt e d a s uppor t i ng br i e f , e s s e nt i a l l y r e i t e r a t i ng tha the w a s p e r s e c u te d b yth e F A R C b e c a u s e o f h is p o litic a l v ie w s a n d a f f ilia tio n . A l tho ug h H enao speci fi ca l l y not ed thatthe F A R C ki l l ed hi s nephew because they c oul d notf

i nd hi m , a nd s t a t e d tha tI . N . S . v. C a r doz a v. F ons e c a , 480 U . S . 421, 107 S .C t. 1 2 0 7 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , w a s “s im ila rto w h a t h ap p e n e d to [ h im ],” h e d id n o t e x p r e s s ly a r g u e th a t th e I J ’s f

in d in g s w e r e in a d e q u a te o rin c o m p le te in a n y r e s p e c t. I d . a t 3 T he B I A s um m a r i l y a f

f i r m e d the I J ’ s or de r , a nd H e na o f i l e d the pr e s e nt p e titio n f o rr e v ie w w ith th is C o u r t.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A s y l um – P a s tP e r s e c ut i on B ec au se th e B IA su m m ar il y a d o p ted th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s d e c is io n o n ly . N r e k a v . U . S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w the I J ’ s f

a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd

“ w e a f f i r m the [ I J ’ s ] de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd9

p ro b ativ e e v id en ce o n th e r ec o rd co n sid er ed as a w h o le.” F o rg u e v . U . S . A tt ’y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T he subst ant i al evi dence t es ti s “ defe re nt i al ” a nd do es no tal l ow “ re w e i gh[ i ng] the e vi de nc e f r om s c r a t c h. ” M a z a r i e gos v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n s an d ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ T o rev erse the I J ’ s f a c tf i ndi ngs , w e m us tf

i nd tha tthe r e c or d notonl y s uppor t s r e ve r s a l , but c om pe l s i t . ” M e ndoz a v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) (c on si deri ng w i thh ol di ng -of- re m ov al cl ai m ). T he fa ctthatevi dence i n the re cord m a y a l s o s uppor ta c onc l us i on c ontr a ry t o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs i s note nough t o j ust i fya r ever sa l . S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A n al i en i n the U ni t ed S t at es m ayappl y f or as yl um , w hi ch the A tt orney G ener al or S ec re t ary of D H S m aygranti n h i s or herdi sc re t i on , i f the al i en prov es th a th e f a l l s w i th i n th e I N A ’ s s t a tu t o ry d e f i n i t i o n o f “ r e f u g e e . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) . S e e a ls o A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s d efi n ed as: any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty o r, in th e c a s e o f

a p e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n t ry in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s u n abl e or u n w i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers e l f of the pr ot e c t i on of , tha t c ou ntry be c a us e of pe r s e c ut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i g i on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cu lar soci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l10

opi ni on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . A cco rd i n g l y, o n e w ay fo r an ap p l i can tl i k e H en ao t o p ro v e “ refu g ee” st atu s, a nd thus e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um , i s t o de m ons tr a t e tha the w a s the vi c t i m of p a s t p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n a p r o te c te d g r o u n d . S e e S e p u lv e d a v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 401 F . 3d 1226, 1230- 31 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he I N A doe s notde f i ne “p e r s e c u tio n .” H o w e v e r , w e h a v e h e ld th a t p e r s e c u tio n is a n “‘e x tr e m e c o n c e p t,’ r e q u ir in g ‘m o r e th a n a f e w is o la te d in c id e n ts o f v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n ,’ a nd tha t‘ [ m ] e r e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. ’ ” I d. a t1231 ( c i t a t i on o mi tt e d ) . “ [ A ] tt e mp t e d mu r d e ri s p e r s e c u t i o n . ” Se e Sa n c h e z J i me n e z v . U . S. A tt ’ y G e n. , 492 F . 3d 1223, 1233 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . B y c ontr a s t , m e na c i ng te le p h o n e th r e a ts , w ith o u t m o r e , d o n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . S ee S ep u lv ed a, 4 1 0 F .3 d at 1 2 3 1 . In S il v a, w e c o n clu d ed th at a p etit io n er ’s e vi de nc e tha ts he w a s s hota tw i thi n a m onth of r e c e i vi ng a c ondol e nc e not e f r om the F A R C r a i s e d a n i nf

e r e nc e tha tthe s hoot i ng w a s r e l a t e d t o the not e a nd, thus , on ac coun tof her pol i t i ca l op i ni on ; ho w ever , the re cord di d n otcom pel that concl usi on . S ee S i l va, 44 8 F . 3d at12 39 . In det erm i ni ng w hether a n app l i ca nthas e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um , w e a s k w he the rthe “ c um ul a t i ve e f f e c t s ” of the al l eged i nci dent s of per se cut i on am ou ntt o p as tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . S e e D e lg a d o v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 8 7 F .3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 1 - 6 2 ( 1 1 th11

C i r . 2007) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta pe t i t i one rm e thi s bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng e l i gi bi l i ty f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l ba s e d on the c um ul a t i ve ef fe ctof the al l eged act s of per se cut i on ). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the part i es , w e c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatH enao f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on f ora s y l um purpos e s . I n s uppor tof hi s c l a i m of p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , H e n a o te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s ta r g e te d b y F A R C b e c a u s e o f c e r ta in p o litic a l a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g h is s e r v ic e in th e C o lo m b ia n a r m y f r o m 1 9 9 4 u n til 1995, hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the C ons e r va t i ve P a r ty , a nd hi s w or k f orhi s br othe r - i nla w , C a r d o n a , a c o u n c ilm a n . H e n a o a s s e r te d th a t th e F A R C s e n t h im appr oxi m a t e l y t e n t o tw e l ve thr e a t e ni ng l e tt e r s ove ra f i ve ors i x y e a rpe r i od, a nd he l a s tr e c e i ve d a l e tt e ron 30 A ugus t , 2002. H e na o pr e s e nt e d one s uc h l e tt e rt o the as yl um offi ce r w ho cond uct ed H enao’ s c re di bl e f ea r i nt ervi ew , bu tH enao destroye d the re stof the l ett er s. H enao al so al l eged thatF A R C gu er i l l as pl ac ed num e r ous thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s t o hi m a thi s hous e , buthi s s i s t e rr e c e i ve d the c a lls , n o t h e . H e n a o f u r th e rte s tif

ie d r e g a r d in g th e S e p te m b e r2 0 0 2 a tte m p te d m u r d e rin w h ic h tw o in d iv id u a ls o n a m o to r c y c le s h o t a t H e n a o . H e n a o te s tif ie d th a t h e d id no tkn ow w ho the i nd i vi du al s w er e, bu t“ pres um ed” they w er e F A R C gu er i l l as be c a us e of

the l e tt e r s tha the ha d r e c e i ve d f r om the m . A R a t66. T he I J he r e f oundIn Sanchez J imenez, we f ound that the re cord c ompelled the conc lusion that petiti oner 4 “suff ere d perse cution when two F ARC members intentionally shot at him in hi s moving c ar.” Sanchez J imenez, 492 F.3d at 1234. In that case , the petitioner wa s able to off er evidencethat the FARC later called him and took responsibility for the shooting . By

contra st, in thi s case , beca use Henao wa s unable to establish that it was F ARC members who had shot at him, or why he had be en shot at, the re cord doe s not compel the conc lusion that Henao suff ere d perse cution as a result of the shooting . See Silva. 448 F.3d 1229, 1238 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 12 tha tthe s hoot i ng i nc i de ntdi d not“ s t e m [ ] ” f r om hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the C ons e r va t i ve P a r ty , orhi s a s s i s t a nc e w i th hi s br othe r - i n- l a w ’ s dut i e s orc a m pa i gns – a n appa r e ntr e f

e r e nc e t o a l a c k of

ne xus be tw e e n the a l l e ge d a c t s of pe r s e c ut i on and H enao’ s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . Id. at36 . T hu s, w hi l e the shoo t i ng i nci dentm ay have am ou nt ed t o p er se cut i on , the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on that 4 H e na o w a s pe r s e c ut e d by F A R C gue r i l l a s on a c c ountof hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the C ol om bi a n a r m y orthe C ons e r va t i ve P a r ty . M or e ove r , the thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a lls a n d le tte r s , w ith o u t m o r e , d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e I J ’s f in d in g in th is r e s p e c t. B . A sy l um – W el l F ou nd ed F ea r of F uture P er se cut i on ; W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the p a r tie s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H e n a o ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w s h o u ld b e g r a n te d , in p a r t, to al l ow the B IA t o con si der w hether H enao has a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p ersecu t i o n , i n l i g h to f th e cu m u l at i v e effect of all o f H en ao ’ s t est i m o n y. In th e ab sen ce o f p astp ersecu t i o n , an ap p l i can tm ay p ro v e th ath e i s a “r e f u g e e ” b y “d e m o n s tr a t[ in g ] a w e ll- f 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 th a t is13

b o th s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le .” R u iz v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 440 F . 3d 1247, 1257 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A n appl i c a ntc a n s a t i s f y the subj ec t i ve com po nentthrou gh “ cr edi bl e t es t i m on y thathe ... genu i nel y f ea rs pers ec ut i on , w hi l e the obj ec t i ve com po nentca n b e f ul fi l l ed ... by es t abl i shi ng that he ... ha s a good r e a s on t o f e a rf utur e pe r s e c ut i on. ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o the obj e c t i ve c om pone nt , the appl i c a ntm a y pr ovi de

“ spec i fi c, det ai l ed fa ct s s ho w i ng a goo d rea son t o fea r thathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed outf orpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof s uc h a n opi ni on. ” I d. a t1258 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). A l t ernat i vel y, the appl i ca ntm ay s h o w th a t:

... there i s apatt ern o r p ra ctice in hi s or hercoun tryof nat i on al i ty or, i f s t at el ess, i n hi s orhe rc ountry of l a s thabi tua l r e s i de nc e , of persecu t i on of

a gr oup of

pe r s ons s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d t o the appl i c a nton 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, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on; a nd

... hi s orhe row n i nc l us i o n i n , a nd i de nt i f i c a t i on w i th, s uc h gr oup of p e r s o n s s u c h th a t h is o rh e rf e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n u p o n r e tu rn is re as on abl e. 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2)(i i i )( A ) - (B ). W he r e a n I J ha s gi ve n r e a s one d c ons i de r a t i on t o the pe t i t i o n , an d m a de a d e q u a t e f

i n d i n g s , w e w i l l n o tr e q u i r e th e I J t o “ a d d r e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y e a c h c l a i m” as se rt ed by th e p et i t i on er“ or ea ch pi ec e of e vi dence” pre se nt ed by the pet i t i on er .14

T an v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 6 F . 3d 13 69 , 13 74 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). H o w ev er , the IJ m u s t “c o n s id e rth e is s u e s r a is e d a n d a n n o u n c e its d e c is io n in te r m s s u f f ic ie n t to e n ab le a r e v ie w in g c o u r t to p e r c e iv e th a t it h a s h e a r d a n d th o u g h ta n d n o t m e r e ly re ac t ed. ” I d. (quo t i ng V er gara -M olin a v . I .N . S . , 95 6 F . 2d 68 2, 68 5 (7th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . E v e n if

a p a r tic u la rc ir c u m s ta n c e , v ie w e d in is o la tio n , is in s u f f ic ie n t to e s t abl i s h a w el l -founde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, a n I J m us tc ons i de rthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c t , i f a ny , of a l l of the i nc i de nt s t o w hi c h the appl i c a ntt e s t i f i e d i n s upp or tof hi s a r gum e nt . S e e D e l ga do , 487 F . 3d a t861- 62 ( de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c t o f a lle g e d a c ts o f

p e r s e c u tio n d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e p e titio n e rw a s e n title d to r e l i e f ) . “ T he S upr e m e C our tha s i ns truc t e d tha t , w he n the I J orB I A ha s notm a de f in d in g s o f f

a c t o rh a s n o t ap p lie d th e la w to th o s e f a c ts , ap p e lla te c o u r ts s h o u ld re m and t o al l ow the IJt o m ak e su ch det erm i nat i on s i n the fi rs ti nst ance . ” S anchez J im e n e z ,4 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 6 ( c itin g I .N .S . v . V e n tu r a , 5 3 7 U .S . 1 2 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 2 3 S .C t. 3 5 3 , 3 5 5 - 5 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ) . I n th is c a s e , H e n a o te s tif ie d a t h is a s y lu m h e a r in g ab o u t th r e e s e p a r a te v io le n t in c id e n ts th a t s u p p o r t h is c la im o f a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n if r e m o v e d to C o lo m b ia –h is b r o th e r - in - la w ’s m u r d e r , h is c o u s in ’s m u r d e r , a n d h is n e p h e w ’s k id n ap i n g a n d s u b s e q u e n t m u r d e r , in a d d itio n to th e te le p h o n e th r e a ts an d l ett ers h e received . A cco rd i n g t o H en ao , th e F A R C k il l ed h i s n ep h ew (w h o se m ot h eri s H e na o’ s s i s t e r , w ho r e c e i ve d the t e l e phone thr e a t s di r e c t e d a tH e na o)The IJacknowledg ed that Henao testified that his nephew was kidna ped and murdere d 5 elsewhere in his opinion, but he did not address Henao’s evidenceor testimony reg ardingeither his cousin’s murder or

his nephew’ s murder at any point in his rea soning reg ardingHenao’s well–founde d fea

r of f uture persecution. 15 because they c ou l d n otfi nd H enao hi m se l f. A tthe ti m e H enao’ s nephew w as m ur de r e d i n 2004, H e na o ha d be e n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f ora tl e a s tone y e a r . T he fa ctthatthe F A R C w as st i l l hu nt i ng H enao o v er a y ea r a ft erhe fl ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es is p ro b ativ e e vi dence thatH enao m ayhave a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n b y th e F A R C if h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . Y e t , i n th e I J ’ s s ubs e que ntl e ga l a na l y s i s , the I J r e f e rr e d onl y t o the de a th of H enao’ s brother- i n-l aw and the F A R C ’ s threa t eni n g p h o n e ca l l s a nd l ett er s. T he IJ di s c us s e d ne i the rthe m ur de rof H e na o’ s c ous i n northe ki dnapi ng an d m ur de rof H e n a o ’s n ep h ew w h en ex p l ai n i n g h i s l eg al co n cl u si o n th at H en ao fai l ed to e s tab lis h a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n . “A lth o u g h th e I J is n o t r e q u ir e d to

5 d i s c u s s e v e ry p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e h i m , ” T a n , 4 4 6 F . 3 d a t1 3 7 6 , we w o u l d h av e ex p ect ed th e IJ t o ad d ress d i rect l y th e m u rd ers o f H en ao ’ s th ree f a m ily m em b er s w hen exp l ai ni ng hi s c on cl usi on thatH enao do es no thave a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. T hus , i tappe a r s tha tthe I J di d no t co n si d er w he the rthe cum ul at i ve ef

fe ctof these m urders , w hen v i ew ed t og ether w i th H enao’ s other t e s t i m ony , w oul d e s t abl i s h tha the ha s a w e l l - f oun d ed f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on base d o n p ol i t i ca l op i ni on i f he w er e r em ov ed t o C ol om bi a.An alien se ekingwithholding of removal under the I NA must show that his “life or 6 f re e d o mw o u l d

b ethre at e n e d

i nth atc o untr

y b e c a u s eo f th eal i en ’ s ra c e , re l i g i o n , n ati o n al i ty, membership in a pa

rticular soc ial group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (A). An alien seeking withholding of removal, however, must demonstrate that he“more -likely-than-not would be per secute d or torture d upon his return to the c ountry in question.” Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 12 87 . Wehavee xplaine d th at this burden o f p ro of is “morestring ent”tha

n th eburden to establish asylum eligibility . Sepulveda, 401 F .3d at 1232. 16 B ec au se the IJdi d n otexpl i ci t l y di sc uss thi s i ss ue, w e vac at e the B IA ’s de c i s i on i n pa r ta nd r e m a nd thi s m a tt e rt o the B I A t o pr ov i d e a r e a s one d opi ni on addres si ng w hether H en ao h as a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on base d u p o n th e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o f th e in c id e n ts ab o u t w h ic h h e te s tif ie d . W e d o n o t, h o w e v e r , e x p r e s s a n y o p i n i o n a s t o th e me r i t s o f H e n a o ’ s w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a rc l a i m. 6 I I I . CONCL US I ON H e na o ha s pe t i t i one d f

orr e vi e w of

a f i na l or de rby the B I A a f f i r m i ng, w i thoutopi ni on, the I J ’ s or de rof r e m ova l a nd de ni a l of

H e na o’ s c l a i m s f

or a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C A T . H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s dec i si on thatH enao ha s nots uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. H ow e ve r , w e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on i n pa r ta nd r e m a nd thi s m a tt e rt o the B I A t o c ons i de r , i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e , the c um ul a t i ve e f f e c t o f a ll o f th e in c id e n ts to w h ic h H e n a o te s tif ie d a t h is a s y lu m h e a r in g in s u p p o r t o f

h is c la im o f

a w e ll- f 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 if

r e m o v e d to C o lo m b ia . B e c a u s e th e I J d e n ie d H e n a o ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s o le ly b e c a u s e h e d id n o t m e e t th e lo w e rth r e s h o ld f o ra s y lu m r e lie f

, w e d e c lin e to17

a ddr e s s w he the rs ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s de ni a l of w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. P E T I T I ON DI S MI S S E D I N P AR T , DE NI E D I N P AR T , AN D GR AN T E D I N P AR T . T HE B I A’ S DE CI S I ON I S V AC AT E D I N P AR T AN D RE M ANDE D T O T HE B I A F OR F URT HE R P ROCE E DI NGS CO NS I S T E NT W I T H T HI S OP I NI ON .