FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APR 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 13698 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 95- 905- 539 A 95- 905- 540 R O S A H E L E N A A R A N G O - E C H E V E R R I , M A N U E L A N T O N I O O C A M P O - M U N O Z , J U A N M A N U E L O C A M P O - A R A N G 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l6, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Ara ng o Echeverri’s asylum application listed her husband, Ma nuel Antonio Ocampo 1 Mun o z , an d

h er s o n , Ju anM anu elOc amp o Ar an go , as d eri v at i v e app l i cant s . Be cau s e Aran go Echeverri is the lead petitioner, weref er only to her. 2 R os aH e l e naA r a ngo E c he ve rr i , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , pe t i t i ons thi s C our tf or r e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) f i na l or de ra dopt i ng a nd a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 12 31 , and rel i ef

un der the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture a nd O ther Cru e l , I n h u ma n a n d 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 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( c ) . Af

t e rr e v i e w, we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D A r a ngo E c he ve rr i , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , w a s a dm i tt e d i nt o the U n ite d S ta te s o n A p r il 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , a s an o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito rau th o r iz e d to s ta y u n til O ct ob er23 , 20 02 . O nce i n the U ni t ed S t at es , A ra ng o E cheverr i fi l ed an appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , c l a i m i ng pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on her 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. T he form er I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) i s s ue d anot i c e t o appe a r , c ha r gi ng A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i w ith r e m o v ab ility , p u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(1 )(B ), fo r o v erst ayi n g h er v i sa. A ran g o E ch ev erri co n ced ed rem o v ab i l i ty. A c c or di ng t o A r a ngo E c he ve rr i ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd he rhe a r i ng te s tim o n y , A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i h a d b e e n am e m b e ro f th e C o n s e rv a tiv e P a r ty in3

C ol om bi a s i nce 199 2. A s am em ber of the C on se rvat i ve P arty, A ra ng o E cheverr i pa r t i c i pa t e d i n e l e c t i on a nd hum a n r i ght s c a m pa i gns , i nc l udi ng tr a ve l i ng t o poor a r e a s of C ol om bi aw i th the he a l th a nd e duc a t i on br i ga de s . A c c or di ng t o A r a ngo E cheverr i , the m ai n p urpo se of her tra vel s w as t o encou ra ge peas ant s t o regi st er w i th the C ons e rva t i ve P a r ty a nd vot e f orC ons e rva t i ve P a r ty c a ndi da t e s . A r a ngo E c h e v e rr i a ls o d is c o u r a g e d th e m f r o m b e c o m in g in v o lv e d w ith g u e rr illag r o u p s in C ol om bi a, such as the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F orce s of C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ”) . A cc ordi ng t o A ra ng o E cheverr i , the F A R C beca m e a w ar e of herac t i vi t i es a nd be ga n c a l l i ng he ra nd thr e a t e ni ng t o ki l l he runl e s s s he s t oppe d. A r a ngo E c he ve rr i r e c e i ve d he rf i r s tthr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l i n O c t obe r1994. S he r e p o r te d th is c a ll to th e p o lic e , b u t d id n o t r e p o r t th a t th e c a ll w a s f r o m th e F A R C . A ra ng o E cheverr i re ce i ved app roxi m at el y thi rt ee n add i t i on al threa t eni ng ca l l s over the ne xte i ghty e a r s . A l though s he w a s s c a r e d, s he c ont i nue d t o w ork w i th the C o n serv at i v e P arty. A ra ng o E cheverr i ’ s brother- i n-l aw and tw o n ephew s w er e a l so i nv ol ved wi th th e C o n s e rv a t i v e P a r ty . I n No v e m b e r1 9 9 5 , Ar a n g o E c h e v e rr i ’ s n e p h e ws w e r e ki dnappe d by the F A R C a nd ne ve rs e e n a ga i n. T he F A R C m ur de r e d A r a ngo E ch ev erri ’ s b ro th er-i n -l aw i n D ecem b er 1 9 9 5 aft er h e b eg an l o o k i n g fo r h i s so n s. I n S e p te m b e r2 0 0 1 , A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i s tr e n g th e n e d h e rC o n s e rv a tiv e P a r ty lite r a c y c a m p a ig n a n d b e g a n ta lk in g o u t a g a in s t g u e r illag r o u p s to y o u n g p e o p le4

the F A R C w a s try i ng t o r e c rui t . O n A pr i l 10, 2002, A r a ngo E c he ve rr i r e c e i ve d a phone c a l l f

r om the F A R C . I n the c a l l , the F A R C thr e a t e ne d t o ki l l A r a ngo E cheverr i un l es s s he st op ped h erac t i vi t i es and st at ed thatthey had al re ady l ocat ed he r . O n A pr i l 13, A r a ngo E c he ve rr i f ound on he rdoor s t e p af une r a l w r e a th w i th a sy m pathy ca rd, offe ri ng cond ol ence s on h erdeath. A ra ng o E cheverr i abando ned h e rh o m e a n d s e n t h e rs o n to h e rin - la w ’s h o m e , w h ile s h e s ta y e d w ith af r ie n d . A r a ngo E c he ve rr i a nd he rs on f l e d C ol om bi aon A pr i l 24, 2002. D uri ng the heari ng , A ra ng o E cheverr i t es t i fi ed thather husband had ent er ed th e U n it ed S tates in 1 9 9 9 b ec au se h e h ad p ro b lem s w ith A ra n g o E ch ev er ri’s p a r tic ip a tio n in th e C o n s e rv a tiv e P a r ty a n d th e y h a d a r g u e d f r e q u e n tly . A ra ng o E cheverr i al so adm i tt ed thatshe had been t o the U ni t ed S t at es three t i m es before she c am e i n 2 00 2 t o app l y f or as yl um . T hese vi si t s occ urre d aft er Ar a n g o E c h e v e rr i b e g a n r e c e i v i n g th r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s a n d a f t e rh e rn e p h e ws h a d b e e n k id n ap p e d a n d h e rb r o th e r - in - la w h a d b e e n k ille d . A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i d id no tappl y f

or as yl um du ri ng any of these ea rl i ervi si t s. A ra ng o E cheverr i st at ed tha ts he de c i de d t o l e a ve C ol om bi aa nd s e e k a s y l um i n A pr i l 2002 be c aus e s he be l i e ve d the l e ve l of

the thr e a tha d i nc r e a s e d w he n the F A R C s e nthe rthe w r e a th. I n a n or a l de c i s i on, the I J de ni e d a l l r e que s t e d r e l i e f . T he I J f

ound A r a ngo E c he ve rr i i ne l i gi bl e f

ora s y l um orw i thhol di ng be c aus e s he ha d f a i l e d t o s how ei ther pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . T he IJ5

s p e c if ic a lly c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e a th th r e a ts a n d c o n d o le n c e w r e a th d id n o t r is e to the l evel of pers ec ut i on . T he IJal so no t ed thathe consi dere d i tsi gn i fi ca ntthat A ra ng o E cheverr i had n otsoug htas yl um du ri ng her e ar l i ervi si t s t o the U ni t ed S t at es even tho ug h (1) the vi si t s occ urre d aft erA ra ng o E cheverr i had rece i ved m ostof the threa t s, her nephew s had been ki dn apped and her brother- i n-l aw had b een m u rd ered ; an d (2 ) h er h u sb an d w as al read y i n th e U n i t ed S t at es. A r a ngo E c he ve rr i appe a l e d t o the B I A . T he B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on. T he B I A not e d tha ti ta f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on “ e s pe c i a l l y gi ve n the le a d r e s p o n d e n t’s th r e e tr ip s to th e U n ite d S ta te s b e f o r e f in a lly f ilin g f o ra s y lu m in 2 0 0 2 . ” Ar a n g o E c h e v e rr i af i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A s yl um A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y appl y f or a s y l um . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f a“r e f u g e e .” S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s a n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try o 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 orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c aus e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .Where, a s here , the B IA expressly adopts the IJ ’s dec ision, we review both the B IA and 2 the IJ ’s ruling s. Al Najjar v. A shcrof t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). To theextent the BIA’s and theIJ ’s dec ision rests on a leg al conc lusion, or reviewis de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcrof t, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 ( 11th Cir. 2001). We review a fac tual deter

mination that an alien is statutorily

ineligible f

or asylum or withholding of removal under the substantial evidenc e 6 8 U . S . C . § 1101( 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 ta tu to ry “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . S e e 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 ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o c a rry th is b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g s ta tu to ry “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s , th e a lie n m u s t, w i th s pe c i f

i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e , e s t abl i s h e i the r( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount of a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed f a c t orw i l l c aus e f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t 1 2 8 7 . I n o r d e rto b e w e ll- f o u n d e d , af

e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n m u s t b e 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 .” A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 . A fi nd i ng of pastpers ec ut i on cr ea t es a pre sum pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on and shi ft s the bu rden t o the go vernm entt o d em on stra t e thatei ther cond i t i on s have c hang ed i n the al i en’ s hom e c ou ntry , or the al i en coul d avo i d such p e r s e c u tio n b y r e lo c a tin g in th e h o m e c o u n try a n d th a t r e lo c a tio n is r e a s o n ab le . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 1). B . A r a n g o E c h e v e r r i’ s C la im A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d a s aw hol e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe I J ’ s de ni a l of A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n is s up p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W ith 2test. Al Najjar, 257 F .3d at 1283-84. Under the substantial evidence te st, “we must find that the

rec ord not only

supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). The f act that evidencein the rec ord may support a contrary

conclusion does not war

rant reversal. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F .3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) . Be causesubstantial evidencesupports the findingthat Ara ng o Echeverri does not fac e a 3 rea sonable possibility

of per sonal perse cution, we do not address her arguments reg arding wh e ther s hesh ow e d s hec ould a vo id p ers e cuti on

by re loc atingwithin Co lom bia . Se e8 C. F .R. § 208.13(b)( 2). 7 r e g a r d to p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th e F A R C ’s te le p h o n e th r e a ts a n d th e f u n e r a l w r e a th p la c e d o n A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i’s d o o r s te p d o n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . T h is C our tha s he l d tha tha r a s s m e nt , s uc h a s thr e a t s a nd a c t s of i nt i m i da t i on, w i thout a n y p h y s i c a l h a rm, d o n o tr i s e t o th e l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n . Se e Se p u l v e d av . U . S. A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( concl ud i ng thatthree threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s, an i n-pers on threa tt o a fa m i l y m em ber, and a bo m b p l ac ed i n the pet i t i on er ’ s m ai l bo x d i d n otam ou ntt o p as tpers ec ut i on ). B e c au s e th e F A R C ’s h a r a s s m e n t o f A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i d o e s n o t a m o u n t to p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i is n o t e n title d to ap r e s u m p tio n o f aw e llfoun ded fearof future pers ec ut i on . N or do es the re cord com pel the concl usi on that there i s are as on abl e possi bi l i ty thatA ra ng o E cheverr i pers on al l y w i l l suff er pe r s e c ut i on i f

s he r e turns t o C ol om bi a . E ve n a s s um i ng A r a ngo E c he ve rr i ’ s f e a rof 3 future pers ec ut i on i s s ubj ec t i vel y genui ne, there i s s ub st ant i al evi dence t o sup po rt the fi nd i ng thati ti s notobj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e gi ven thatA ra ng o E cheverr i w asThereis also substantial evidenceto sugg est that Ara ng o Echeverri’s subjective fe ar w as 4 not genuine g iven that Ara ng o Echeverri only

sought asylum on her four th trip to the United States and her

threeprevious trips had oc curred af ter she be g an re ceivingtelephone threats, her nephew s had been kidnapped a nd her brother-in- law had be en killed. On appe al, Ara

ng o Echeverri does not raise a ny challeng e to the denial of CAT relief 5 and has a bandoned this issue. See Sepulve da, 401 F .3d at 1228 n.2. 8 n e v e rp h y s i c a l l y h a rme d . A l th o u g h A r a n g o Ec h e v e rr i e mp h a s i z e s th a tth e FA RC 4 k id n ap p e d h e rn e p h e w s a n d m u r d e r e d h e rb r o th e r - in - la w , th e s e e v e n ts o c c u rr e d in 19 95 . A ra ng o E cheverr i re m ai ned i n C ol om bi a f or another s even ye ar s, and there i s no e vi de nc e tha tthe F A R C ha rm e d ora tt e m pt e d t o ha rm he rphy s i c a l l y dur i ng tha tt i m e . A ddi t i ona l l y , A r a ngo E c he ve rr i ha s r e l a t i ve s w ho ha ve c ont i nue d t o l i ve i n C ol om bi a unh arm ed. F urtherm ore, A ra ng o E cheverr i has notpres ent ed evi dence s ug gest i ng thatthe F A R C cont i nu es t o b e i nt er es t ed i n h er . G iv e n th a t A r a n g o E c h e v e rr i f a ile d to c a rry h e rlo w e rb u r d e n o f p r o o f w ith r e ga r d t o a s y l um , s he i s a l s o i ne l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . S e e F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 88 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). 5 P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.