FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 13, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 55 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 95 -5 44 -8 67 MARIA IS ABEL MENDOZA-RODRIGUEZ, GUSTAVO AD OLFO GARCIA-ACOSTA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 13 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mar iaMen do za-R od rig ue z an d h er h us ba nd(“ Pet it io ne rs ”) s eekrev ie w ofth e BIA’s d eci si on de nyin g t he ir app li cat io n fo r as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , andit s s umm ary de ci si on affi rm in g t he IJ’s s ub se qu en t o rd er d en y in g th em CAT rel ie f. Pet it io ne rs arg ue th atth e BIA erro ne ou sl y he ldth atth ey

di d n ot be lo ng to a pr ot ect edcla ss forasylum pu rp os es , andals o fa il edto pro vi de a rev ie wab le di sc us si on forth atho ld in g. Pet it io ne rs furth er ar gu e th atth e BIA an d IJap pl ie d a n i nc orrectst an da rdto th ei r ap pl ic at io n fo r CAT rel ie f. Pet it io ne rs cit e to Si lv a- Ren gi

fo v. Att ’y Gen . of

U.S. , 47 3 F .3d58 (3r d C ir. 2 00 7) , forth e pr op os it io n t ha t the y

on ly hadto est ab li sh th atth e Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t was wil lfu ll y bl in d t o t orturo us act iv it y . Peti ti on ers m ai nt ai n t ha t the Co lo m bi an go ve rn m en t h as be enwil lfu ll y bl in d abo utth e to rtu re tha t the y face if the y

are fo rcedto return t o C ol om bi a. Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo , bu t re vi ew fi nd in gs of f actforsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he m . Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Our rev ie w forsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l” , andwe “ vi ew th e rec or d ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t ha t d eci si on .” Id . at 1 35 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n

2m ark s o mit te d) . W e wil l o nl y rev ers e th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n i f ev id en ce wo ul d

“ co m pe l[ ] a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Zh en g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 45 1 F .3d12 87 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . The fac t tha t ev id en ce i n t he reco rdm ay als o s up po rt aco nc lu si on co nt rary to the adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s i s n oten ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al . Ade

fe mi v. Ash cr of

t , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). A. Rea so ne d Exp la na ti on Pet it io ne rs arg ue th atth e BIA d idno t p ro vi de a reas on edex pl an at io n fo r it s de ci si on su st ai ni ng th e g ov ern m en t’s ap pe al . In i ts de ci si on , th e BIA s ta te d t ha t

“ [w]e agre e wit h t he [go ve rn m en t] th atth e res po nd en ts are n oteli gi bl e fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al be cau se th ey fai le d t o e st ab li sh th ei r mis tre atm en t was on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d u nd er the Act.” Init s ap pe al , th e g ov ern m en t i de nt ifi edtwo pro te ct edgro un ds th atit cl ai m eddi d n otap pl y

to Pet it io ne rs . Firs t, the go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atPet it io ne rs di d n otsu fferan y

m is tre atm en t o n a cco un t o f th ei r po li ti cal op in io ns . Seco nd , th e go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atPet it io ne rs di d n otsu fferm is tre atm en t o n a cco un t o f th ei r m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . W e co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t Pet it io ne rs subm it te d i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o d em on strat e th atth ey ex pe rie nc ed pa stpe rs ecu ti on or f

ear o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on “ on acco un t o f” a p ro te ct edgro un d.

3The reco rdev id en ce i nd ic at es th atth e p aram il it ary or ga ni zat io n’s m ot iv at io n i n

th reat en in g P et it io ne rs was a tt rib ut ab le to it s d es ire to ke ep in fo rm at io n abo utth e or ga ni zat io n s ecre t an d the ir d es ire to ob ta in cert ai n p ro pe rty from th e Me nd oz a fam il y . Ms. M en do za t es ti fie d t ha t s he be li ev edth e p aram il it ary gr oup t hr ou gh he r br ot he r ha d re ve al edin fo rm at io n t o h er an d h er fa m il y reg ard in g t he pa ram il it ary gr oup. A.R. 3 56 . Whe n a rm edm em be rs of t he pa ram il it ary gr oup wen t t o M s. M en do za’s h ou se an d t hr eat en edhe r, th e g ro up ’s st at edco nc ernwas th atMs . Men do za o r an ot he r fam il y m em be r wou ldsay or d o s om ethi ng th at wou lden da ng er the gro up . A.R. 35 7. Whenon e o f th e h ead s o f th e p aram il it ary gr oup t ol d M s. M en do za’s m ot he r ov er the tel ep ho ne th atth ey wou ldbe m ur de red , he s ta te d i t was be cau se he be li ev edMs . Men do za’s b ro th er s ha red in fo rm at io n abo utth e p aram il it ary gr oup wi thhi s fa m il y . A.R. 35 8. Aft er Ms . Men do za’s b ro th er g av e two en ve lo pe s co nt ai ni ng ti tl es to real pro pe rty andba nk acco un ts to th ei r m othe r, th e p aram il it ary or ga ni zat io n d em an de d t ha t o ne of t he en ve lo pe s b e h an de d o ve r to th em . A.R. 36 1. No th in g i n M s. M en do za’s te st im on y or t he reco rdev id en ce i nd ic at es th atth e p aram il it ary gr oup a tt rib ut ed an y so rt o f po li ti cal op in io n t o P et it io ne rs or t ha t the y ha d any mot iv at io n o th er th anto si le nc e Ms . Men do za’s fam il y an d t o o bt ai n p ro pe rty. “ [E]vid en ce tha t ei th er i s co ns is te ntwith a ct s o f pr iv at e v io le nc e o r th e p et it io ne r’s fai lu re t o 4co op erat e wit h g ue rri ll as , or tha t m erel y sh ows th ata pe rs on ha s b eenth e v ic ti m of cri m in al act iv it y , do es no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n ast atut or il y pr ot ect edgro un d.” Se e Rui z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); se e a ls o I.N

.S. v. Eli as -Za ca ri as , 50 2 U.S. 4 78 , 48 2, 1 12 S. Ct. 8 12 , 81 6 (1 99 2) (“ th e m ere e xi st en ce o f a g en eral iz ed‘ po li ti cal ’ m ot iv e” d oe s n otest ab li sh pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d) ; Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen ., 39 2 F.3 d 4 34 , 43 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ It i s n oten ou gh to sh ow tha t s he was o r wil l b e pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu reddu e to he r refu sa l t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he gu eri ll as .”); Mol in aMor al es v. I.N.S

. , 23 7 F .3d10 48 , 10 51 -5 2 (9 th Cir . 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at pe rs ecu ti on be cau se of p ers on al ve nd et taforrep orti ng lo cal off ic ia l t o p ol ic e is no t p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f im pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n) . Furth er, co nt rary to Pe ti ti on ers ’ cl ai m s, Pe ti ti on ers ’ Bri ef at18 -1 9, the re i s no ev id en ce tha t the pa ram il it ary gr oup b el ie ve d P et it io ne rs be lo ng edto , no r do Pet it io ne rs actua ll y

be lo ng to , any gro up th atqu al ifi es as a“pa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e INA. A gro up m ay qu al ify as a “pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up ” und er the INA if the gro up ha s b ot h i m m ut ab il it y an d s oc ia l vi si bi li ty. Se e Ca st il lo -Ari as v. U.S. Att ’y Gen er al , 44 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In Ca st il lo -Ari as , th is co urt h el d tha t the Bo ard ’s leg al de fin it io n o f wha t co ns ti tu te s a p art ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up was re as on ab le an d “ ne it he r arb it rary, 5cap ric io us , no r cl earl y co nt rary to l aw.” Id. at 1 19 6. As forimm ut ab il it y , a

“pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up ” m us t h av e a “ co m

m on , imm

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c . . . [th at ] is fun da m en ta l t o [i ts m em be rs ’] in di vi du al id en ti ti es or c on sc ie nc es .” Id. ( ci ti ng Mat te r o f Aco sta , 19 I. & N. Dec. 21 1, 2 33 -3 4 (B IA 19 85 ), ov erru le d o n ot he r gr ou nd s b y Mat te r o f Mo gh ar ra bi , 19 I. & N. Dec. 43 9, 4 47 (BIA 1 98 7) ). Exa m pl es of aco m

m on , imm

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c in cl ud e se x, co lo r, ki ns hi p t ie s, orincert ai n c irc um st an ces “ a sh aredpa stex pe rie nc e su chas f orm er m il it ary le ad ers hi p o r la ndown ers hi p.” Id. at 1 19 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The co m m on ch arac te ris ti c m

us t b e so m ethi ng ot he r th anth e ri skof b ei ng pe rs ecu te d. Se e id. at 1 19 8. As fo r so ci al vi si bi li ty, th e fac t tha t “ a ch arac te ris ti c o r as so ci at io n i s s ha red by a larg e num

be r of pe op le do es no t m eanth ateit he r so ci ety at l arg e, le t al on e ot he r m em

be rs withi n t ha t s am e g ro up , wil l re co gn iz e th atch arac te ris ti c o r as so ci at io n.” Id. In Ca st il lo -Ari as , th is co urt co nc lu de d t ha t n on -cri min al in fo rm an ts work in g a ga in sta Co lo m bi andru g c art el were n ota pa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup und er the INA bec au se th ey were n otso ci al ly vis ib le , th e g ro up was t oo nu m ero us an d i nc ho at e, an d t he ir d efi ni ng att rib ut e was th ei r pe rs ecu ti onby the ir cart el on ce the ir i de nt it ie s wer e rev eal ed . Id . at 1 19 7- 98 . The co urt em ph as iz ed th ata “pa rti cu lar so ci al gro up ” sh ou ldno t b e th e “ ‘catchall ’ fo r al l p ers on s 6al le gi ng pe rs ecu ti on who do no t fi t el se whe re.” Id. at 1 19 8 (i nt ern al cit at io ns

om itte d) . Pet it io ne rs cla im

th ey be lo ng to a “pr ot ect edcla ss ” b as edup on Ms . Men do za’s b ro th er’s (Di eg o Herm anMen do za - “ Dieg o” ) m em be rs hi p i n a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up – p aram il it ari es . Pets ’ Br. at18 . Thu s, the y cla im to be a pa rt o f an“ im

pu te d” so ci al gro up . Yet, th ey pro vi de no ex pl an at io n a s t o h ow Dieg o’s m em

be rs hi p i n the param il it ary or ga ni zat io n – whi chhard ly con st itut es an imm ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c –

crea te s a p art ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up of wh ic h t he y are m em be rs . Nor d o t he y

ex pl ai n h ow Di eg o’s m em be rs hi p i n t he pa ram il it ary or ga ni zat io n m ad e wha te ve r gr oup t he y be lo ng to so ci al ly vis ib le . Reg ard le ss , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e m em be rs hi p i n a ny soc ia l g ro up was the m ot iv at io n fo r th e pa ram il it ary gr oup’s thr eat s. Pet it io ne rs furth er cl ai m

th atth e Bo arddi d n otpro vi de a reas on edde ci si on whe n i t d en ie d t he ir app li cat io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . Pet s’ Br. at18 . The Bo ard , ho wev er, s ta te d t ha t i t ag reedwith t he go ve rn m en t tha t Pet it io ne rs fai le d t o e st ab li shth atth ei r m is tre atm en t was on acco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou nd . A.R. 25 2. In it s ap pe ll at e b rie f to th e Bo ard , th e g ov ern m en t s etforth nu m ero us arg um en ts as t o wh y Pet it io ne rs fai le d t o m eetth ei r bu rd en , all of wh ic h are c on ta in edinth e rec or d. A.R. 2 65 -9 1. Itis forth e rea so ns setforth inth at 7br ie f an d i n Eli as -Za ch ar ia s , in fr a , th atth e Bo ardgra nt edth e g ov ern m en t’s ap pe al . This reas on in g i s s uf fic ie ntforth is co urt’s m ean in gf ul rev ie w. Se e Men do za v. U.S. Att ’y. Gen . , 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng Bo ard ’s su m

m ary affi rm an ce p ro cedur es di d n otvi ol at e due pro ces s b ecau se “ an ap pe ll at e co urt wi ll co nt inue to ha ve th e IJ ’s dec is io n a ndth e rec or d upo n wh ic h i t is ba se d a va il ab le forrev ie w.”) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) ). B. CAT Rel ie

f To qua li fy

forCAT rel ie f, th e ap pl ic an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f pr oo f to

“ es tabl is h t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly than n otth athe or s he wou ldbe to rtu redif rem ov edto th e p ro po se d c ou nt ry of r em ov al .” Sa nc he

z Ji men ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 49 2 F .3d12 23 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ti ng 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .16 (c)( 2) ). Tortur e is th e in te nt io na l i nf li ct io n o f “ se ve re p ai n o r su ffer in g, wh ethe r ph y si cal orm en ta l.” Se e 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .18 (a)( 1) . Mor eo ve r, to ob ta in CAT rel ie f, th e al ie n m us t d em on st rat e th atth e to rtu re wo ul d b e in fli ct edby the go ve rn m en t o r with t he go ve rn m en t’s co ns en t o r acqui es cen ce. Se e Reyes -S an ch ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 36 9 F .3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ Acqui es cen ce o f a p ub li c o ffi ci al requi res th atth e p ub li c o ffi ci al , pri orto th e act iv it y co ns ti tu ti ng to rtu re, h av e aware ne ss of s uc h a ct iv it y an d t he reaf

te r br each hi s o r he r le ga l re sp on si bi li ty to in te rv en e to pre ve ntsu chact iv it y .” 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .18 (a)( 7) . Evid en ce re le va ntto 8th e as se ss m en t o f el ig ib il it y forCAT rel ie f in cl ud es , bu t i s n otli m it edto : (1 ) ev id en ce o f pa stto rtu re i nf li ct edon th e ap pl ic an t; (2) th e v iabi li ty of rel oc at io n a s a m ean s t o a vo idto rtu re; (3) gro ss , fla gr an t o r m as s hum anrig ht s v io la ti on s i n t he co un try of rem ov al ; an d (4 ) ot he r rel ev an t co un try con di ti on s. Se e8 C.F .R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(3 ). The b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r anap pl ic an t s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e CAT, li ke th atforanap pl ic an t s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e INA, is hi gh er tha n t he bu rd enim po se d o n a n a sylum

ap pl ic an t. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 3. We hav e h el d t ha t a c la im an t fo r withh ol di ng of rem ov al can no t co nf

er d eri va ti ve rig ht s o n afam il y m em be r. Delg ado v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 48 7 F .3d85 5, 8 62 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). As an in it ia l m at te r, th e rec or d d oe s n otin di cat e th atth e IJor B IA ap pl ie d anin co rrec t l eg al st an da rdinth ei r co ns id erat io ns of M en do za-R odrig ue z’s CAT rel ie f ap pl ic at io n. Fi rs t, Me nd oz a-Ro dr ig ue z ci te d t o aThi rdCir cu itde ci si on in supp ort o f he r arg um en t tha t the BIA an d IJap pl ie d a n i m pr op er “ acqui es cen ce” st an da rdin st eadof awil lfu l b li nd ne ss st an da rd . Seco nd , bo th th e IJan d t he BIA ap pl ie d t he pro pe r st an da rd , det erm in in g t ha t M en do za-R od rig ue z h adfai le d t o es tabl is h t ha t s he m or e li ke ly tha n n otwou ldbe to rtu redby or with t he Co lo m bi an go ve rn m en t’s ac qu ie sc en ce upo n h er return t o C ol om bi a. Infact , th e BIA n ot ed th atth e que st io n o f acqui es cen ce i nc lu de d t he co nc ep t o f wil lfu l b li nd ne ss . 9The refo re, b ot h the IJ andBIA p ro pe rly anal yzedMen do za-R od rig ue z’s CAT

rel ie f ap pl ic at io n u nd er o urpre ced en t. Se e Reyes -S an ch ez , 36 9 F .3dat 1 24 2. Nex t, the reco rdde m on st rat es th atth ere was subs tant ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt th e IJ ’s andBIA’s de ni al of M en do za-R od rig ue z’s ap pl ic at io n fo r CAT rel ie f. Men do za-R od rig ue z’s do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce, i n p art ic ul ar the Uni te d S ta te s St at e Dep artm en t’s 2 00 8 C ou ntry Rep ort o n Hu m anRig ht s Pr act ic es inCo lo m bi a, in di cat es th atth e Co lo m

bi ango ve rn m en t, rath er than a cqui es ci ng to th e pa ra-m il it ary fo rces , hadbe enstru gg li ng to bri ng th em to jus ti ce o r atlea stles se n th ei r in flu en ce. Die go ’s arres t i ts el f su gg es ts th atth e Co lo m bi ango ve rn m en t, i n so m e se ns e, is no t ac qu ie sc in g t o t he il le ga l ac ti vi ti es of the para-m il it ary gr oups . Inan y ev en t, Me nd oz a-Ro dr ig ue z h as si m pl y m ad e n o s ho win g t ha t s he m or e li ke ly tha n n otwil l b e subjec te d t o a ny form of t ortu re upo n h er re tu rnto Co lo m bi a. As the IJ p oi nt edou t, Me nd oz a-Ro dr ig ue z n ev er cl ai m edth atsh e o r an y of h er fa m il y

m em be rs ha d e ve r be enph y si cal ly harm edby the pa ra-m il it ary gr oup tha t al le ge dl y

ki ll edhe r br ot he r. Men do za-R od rig ue z m ad e n o s ho win g th atDieg o’s p ara- m il it ary gr oup, the “ Sel f Defen se Group o f Bo go ta ,” was so pe rv as iv e th ro ug ho utCo lo m bi a th athe r fam il y

co ul d n otrel oc at e so m ewh ere ot he r th anBo go ta . Furt he r, Men do za-R od rig ue z adm it te d t ha t h er m ot he r ha d m ov edba ckto Co lo m

bi a, an d h adbe enli vi ng th ere f orsi x m on th s wi th ou t 10in ci de nt . Men do za-R od rig ue z d idno t es tabl is h t ha t s he was l ik el y to be to rtu red by Dieg o’s p ara- m il it ary gr oup upo n h er re tu rnto Co lo m bi a, an d we d eny

he r pe ti ti on forrev ie w inth is res pe ct . Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we d en y Pet it io ne rs ’ pe ti ti on for

rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

11