T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HE R MONG E NE S C UB AN GB AN G R A M O S , J r ., P et i t i on er , v. M IC H A E L B . M U K A S E Y , A tt orney G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72037 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 120- 801 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r8, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F A R R IS , F E RN A N D E Z , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H e rm onge ne s C uba ngba ng R a m os , J r . pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the de ni a l by the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 , a n d we d e n yr e v i e w. 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T o g ran trev i ew , w e w o u l dn eed t o fi n dth at“ th e ev i d en ce n o to n l y s u p p o r ts ac o n tr a ryc o n c lu s io n [ to th a t r e a c h e db yth e B I A ], b u t c o m p e ls i t . ” Sa n g h a v . I

NS , 1 0 3 F .3 d1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; see a l so I N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 483–84 ( 1992) ( a s s e rt i ng tha tthe pe t i t i one rm us ts how “ tha tthe e vi de nc e [ the p e titio n e r ] p r e s e n te dw a s s o c o m p e llin g th a t n o r e a s o n ab le f a c tf in d e rc o u ldf

a il to f in dth e r e q u is ite f

e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n ” ) . W i th reg ard t o asyl u m , th e B IA d et erm i n ed th atR am o s d i dn o test ab l i sh e i the rpa s tpe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. O ur pr e c e de nt s “ c ha r a c t e r i z e [ ] pe r s e c ut i on a s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , m a rke d bythe i nfl i ct i on of suff

er i ng or harm . . . i n a w ayre garded as offe nsi ve. ” L i v . A s h c r o ft , 356 F . 3d 1153, 1158 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( e n banc ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) (a l t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ). T he ca se s c i t ed by the B IA t o sup po rti t s c on cl usi on that th e b rief d eten ti o n an dth re ats s u ff er ed b y R am o s a t th e h an d s o f th e N ew P eo p le’s A rm y( N P A ) 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 a d e q u a te lyd e m o n s tr a te th a t th e r e c o r din th is c a s e d o e s n o t c o m p e l ac o n tr a ryc o n c lu s io n . See M arcos v . G on zales , 4 1 0 F .3 d1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 5

– 1 6 , 1 1 1 8

– 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; H o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 1

– 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Pr a s a d v . I NS , 4 7 F .3 d3 3 6 , 3 3 9

– 4 0 ( 9 th C i r . 1995) . D e t e nt i on a nd thr e a t s m a ybe c e ntr a l c om pone nt s of va l i d pe r s e c ut i on c la im s , b u t th e f

a c ts h e r e d o n o t c o m p e l af in d in g o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n .3

T h o u g h “[ e ]v e n ate n p e r c e n t c h a n c e th a t th e ap p lic a n t w ill b e p e r s e c u te d in the f utur e i s e nough t o e s t abl i s h aw e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” of f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, Kn ez e v ic v . A s h c r o

ft , 367 F . 3d 1206, 1212 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , the r e c or d doe s not c o m p e l u s to c o n c lu d e th a t R a m o s h a s aw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f b e in g p e r s e c u te dif he re turns t o the P hi l i pp i nes. R am os re m ai ned i n the P hi l i pp i nes f or m ore than fi ve m on ths af

t erhi s bri ef

det ent i on and w as no tconfront ed or di re ct l y threa t ened a ga i n. See Li m v . I

NS , 2 2 4 F .3 d9 2 9 , 9 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a c k n o w le d g in g th a t a

“ po st -threa tharm l es s per i od ” i n the coun tryof pers ec ut i on i s “ re l evant ” t o w hether a n ap p l i c a n t ’ s f

e a ri s r e a s o n ab l e ) . Th e o n l yth r e a td u r i n g th o s e f i v e mo n th s c a me s e c o n d h a n da n ds u g g e s te dth a t R a m o s m ig h t b e h a rm e dif h e r e tu rn e dto h is hom e t ow n i n the f

utur e , notne c e s s a r i l ytha the w oul d be ha rm e d f orr e m a i ni ng el se w here i n the coun try . M oreover, al m osttw enty y ears el apse d b etw ee n w hen the N P A det ai ned and threa t ened R am os and the B IA ’ s dec i si on i n h i s c as e. See Can al es -V

arga s v . G on zales , 441 F . 3d 739, 746 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “ T he a ge of the thr e a t s tha t[ the pe t i t i one r ] r e c e i ve d a r e r e l e va ntt o oure va l ua t i on of the r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f

[ th e p e titio n e r ’s ] f

e a r .” ) . E v e n th o u g h R a m o s d idn o t f u lf ill a ll o f h i s p ro m i ses t o th e N P A , w e fi n di tu n l i k el y th atth e N P A h as co n t i n u ed i n t erest in h a rm in g h im . T h u s , w e a r e n o t c o m p e lle dto f in dth a t R a m o s h a s aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on.4

W ith re g ar dto w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al, fo r u s to g ra n t rev iew o f th e B IA ’s de ni a l , the e vi de nc e w oul d ne e d t o c om pe l us t o f i nd a“ ‘ c l e a rpr obabi l i ty ’ of the thr e a tt o l i f

e orf r e e dom i f

[ R a m os w e r e ] de port e d t o hi s . . . c ountryof nat i on al i ty. ” T

am an g v. H

older , 59 8 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 91 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). “ T he cl ear pr obabi l i tys t a nda r d i s m or e s tr i nge nttha n the w e l l - f ounde d f e a rs t a nda r d f

or as yl um , ” i d. , a n dth u s is n o t s a tis f ie din R a m o s ’s c a s e e ith e r . P E T I T I O N D E N I E D .