FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 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. 07- 11123 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 637- 408 M A R Y O R I M A R I N , 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

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 6, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a ry or i M a r i n, ac i t i z e n of V e ne z ue l a , thr ough c ouns e l , s e e ks r e vi e w of the2

B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on s um m a r i l ya f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rappl 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 unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e lie f u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a n dO th e rC ru e l, In h u m an an d D eg ra d in g T re atm en t o r P u n ish m en t (“C A T ”) . W e d ism iss M ar in ’s p e titio n a s to h e rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l a n dC A T c la im s b e c au s e s h e f a ile dto e x h au s t h e ra d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s f o rth o s e c la im s . W e g r a n t h e rp e titio n a s to h e ra s y l u m c l a i m , h o we v e r , a n d r e m a n dt o th e B I A. I . B AC KG RO UN D In Jul y 200 3, the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty ( “ D H S ”) adm i tt ed M ar i n t o the U ni t ed S t at es i n M i am i as a non -i m m i grantB -2 vi si t or for a te m p o r a ryp e r io d n o t to e x c e e d J a n u a ry1 9 , 2 0 0 4 . O n S e p te m b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , M a r in appl i e d t o the D H S f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe CA T. O n M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , th e D H S f i l e daN o t i c e t o A p p e a rw i th th e M i a mi I m m ig r a tio n C o u rt, c h a r g in g M a r in w ith r e m o v ab ilityu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 12 27 (a )( 1)(B ) bec ause she r em ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es for al on ger t i m e than perm i tt ed. O n Jun e 30, 20 04 , M ar i n app eare d b ef ore the IJw i th cou nsel , conceded r e m o v ab ilitya n ds ta te d th a t s h e w is h e dto s e e ka s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a n d p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C A T . A ther r em ov al hear i ng on Jul y 11, 20 05 , M ar i n t es t i fi ed i n sup po rtof her3

ap p lic a tio n . S h e te s tif

ie d th a t s h e w o rk e da s ac h e m ic a l e n g in e e rf o rV e n e z u e la pe tr ol e um f

r om S e pt e m be r2001 t o J a nua ry2003 a nd tha ts he w a s a n a c t i ve m e m b e ro f

th e P e tr o le u m W o rk e r s U n io n , U N A P E T R O L . M a r in a lle g e d ly a tte n d e d a ll o f

U N A P E T R O L ’s a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g b i- m o n th lym a r c h e s in d em o n strat i o n ag ai n stP resi d en tH u g o C h av ez’ s g o v ern m en t , an dserv ed as a le a d e rf o rs o m e U N A P E T R O L a c tiv itie s . W hi l e M ar i n d es cr i bed severa l i nst ance s of a l l eged perse cut i on i n h er appl i c a t i on, the m os tpe rt i ne nton appe a l ar e the phone c a l l a nd s hoot i ng of J une 3, 20 03 . M ar i n cl ai m s thatshe r ec ei ved an ano nym ou s c al l thatm orni ng fr om a m an w ho sa i d h e knew her c l as s s chedul e, w hen she came and le fther hom e, and w here h er fri en d s l i v ed . T h e m an p u rp o rt ed l y th reat en ed th atM ari n w o u l d“ p ay d earl y” i f s he c ont i nue d t o pr ot e s ta ga i ns tP r e s i de ntC ha ve z . T ha te ve ni ng, a s M a r i n dr ove h o m e f r o m c la s s , ac a ra lle g e d lyap p r o a c h e dh e rv e h ic le a n dtr ie dto f o r c e M a r in to l os e c ontr ol the r e of

. M ar i n a s s e rt s tha ta s s he be gan t o s pe e d up, the m e n i n the v eh i cl e b eg an t o sh o o tath er car, destroying h er w i n d sh i el d . A s th ey d ro v e aw ay, M a r in s a id , th e ym a d e ah a n d s ig n a l id e n tif y in g th e m s e lv e s a s C h a v e z s u p p o rte r s . A f t e rthe pr e s e nt a t i on of

e vi de nc e , the I Ji s s ue d a n or a l de c i s i on de ny i ng M a r i n’ s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the I Jnot e d tha tM a r i n di d not prov i de evi dence apartfr om her ow n t es t i m on y t o sup po rther c l ai m thatshe w as i nv ol ved w i th U N A P E T R O L beyond m er e m em bers hi p. F urtherm ore, the IJ4

i ndi c a t e d tha tt o rul e i n M a r i n’ s f a vor , i tw oul d ha ve ne e de d s om e c orr obor a t i on of he rc a r - c ha s e s t ory , l i ke apol i c e r e port . A c c or di ng t o the I J , M a r i n’ s a r gum e nt tha ts he di d notgo t o the pol i c e be c aus e the pol i c e s upport e d C ha ve z di d not s u f f ic e . T h u s , th e I Jf

o u n d th a t M a r in d idn o t s h o w p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw 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 u n d e rth e I N A . I n he rbr i e f

be f or e the B I A , M a r i n c ha l l e nge d the I J ’ s c onc l us i on tha ts he had fai l ed t o sho w thatshe w as spec i fi ca l l y t ar get ed on ac coun tof her pol i t i ca l be l i e f s a s c ontr a ryt o the w e i ghtof the e vi de nc e . T he B I A , how e ve r , a f f i rm e d the I J ’s d e c is io n w ith o u t a n o p in io n . O n app ea l fr om the B IA , M ar i n argues thatthe IJerre d b ec ause her ora l t e s t i m onyw a s s uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h pa 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 ba s e d on he ra nt i - C ha ve z opi ni ons . I n r e s pons e , the G o v e rn me n ta r g u e s th a tw e ( 1 ) l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rM a r i n ’ s a s y l u m c l a i ms be c aus e s he aba ndone d the m , a nd ( 2) l a c k j ur i s di c t i on ove rhe rw i thhol di ng of re m ov al and C A T cl ai m s bec ause she di d n otexhaustthem bel ow and aband on ed the m he r e . F urthe rm or e , the gove rnm e ntar gue s tha te ve n i f w e di s a gr e e on the ab a n d o n m e n t is s u e , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l r e v e r s a l o f th e I J ’s d e c is io n . M a r in di d n otfi l e are pl y bri ef . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . J ur i s di c t i on5

W e r e v ie w ju r is d ic tio n a l m a tte r s d e n o v o . B r o o k s v . A s h c r o

ft , 283 F . 3d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . “T h e e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t ap p lic ab le to i m m i grat i on ca se s i s f

ou nd i n 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)(1), w hi ch prov i des that‘ [a ] court m a yr e v ie w af

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l o n lyif

. . . th e a lie n h a s e x h au s te da ll adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es avai l abl e t o the al i en as of ri gh t . ’ ” Sundarv . I . N . S. , 328 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). B ec ause w e vi ew thatre qu i re m entas j uri sdi ct i on al , w e l ac k “ j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der c l ai m s thathave no tbeen rai se d before the B IA . ” I

d. In her bri ef

before the B IA , M ar i n d oes notm ent i on her c l a i m unde rthe C A T a nd onl ym e nt i ons w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l i n he rc onc l udi ng s e n te n c e . T h u s , w e a g r e e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to co n si d er th ese cl ai m s. W e d is a g r e e , h o w e v e r , w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t M a r in ab a n d o n e d h e ra s y lu m c la im b yin a d e q u a te lyr a is in g it b e f o r e u s o n ap p e a l. “W h e n a n ap p e lla n t f

a ils to o f f e ra r g u m e n t o n a n is s u e , th a t is s u e is ab a n d o n e d ,” a n d p a s s in g r e f

e r e n c e s to a n is s u e a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to p r e v e n t ab a n d o n m e n t. Se pulv e da v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per curi am ). T he go vernm entar gu es that“ M ar i n h as no tm ade any st at em enti n h er br i e f tha tm i ght , e ve n l i be r a l l y , be c ons true d a s ac ohe r e nta r gum e ntr e l a t i ng t o the di s pos i t i ve ba s e s on w hi c h the I m m i gr a t i on J udge de ni e d M a r i n’ s c l a i m f or as yl um . ” ( R ed B ri ef

at26 ). D es pi t e the abse nce of cohere nce and soph i st i ca t ed6

leg al ar g u m en t i n h erb rief , h o w ev er , M ar in d o es ex p li citl y c h allen g e th e I J’s a s y l u m d e t e rm i n a t i o n . B e c au s e we r e a dMa r i n ’ s b r i e f l i b e r a l l y , th e r e f

o r e , we c o n c l u d e th a ts h e h a s s u f f i c i e n t l yr a i s e dh e ra s y l u m c l a i m b e f o r e u s , a n dwe a d d r e s s th a t c la im h e r e . Se e A l l s tate I ns . C o. v . Sw ann , 2 7 F .3 d1 5 3 9 , 1 5 4 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1994) ( “ br i e f

s s houl d be r e a d l i be r a l l yt o a s c e rt a i n the i s s ue s r a i s e d on appeal ”) . B, A s y l u m B ec au se th e B IA su m m ar il y a ff irm ed th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s d eci si o n d i rect l y. Sanc hez -J i m e nezv . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 4 9 2 F .3 d1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 07 ). W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s f ac tual det erm i nat i on s und erthe subst ant i al e v id e n c e te s t. I

d. a t 1 2 3 0 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e w ill “a f f irm th e [ I J ’s ] d e c is io n if it is supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” I d. F urtherm ore, w e m ayon l y r ever se the IJ ’ s f ac t f in d in g s if

w e f in d th a t th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls , n o t m e r e lys u p p o rts , r e v e r s a l. I d. 1 . Cr e d ib ility A n a lie n b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g e lig ib ilityf

o ra s y lu m . I

d. a t1231. T he appl i cant ’ s c re di bl e t es t i m on y “ m aybe suff i ci entt o sust ai n the appl i cant ’ s burden w i tho utcorr ob orat i on . ” D -Muhum e d v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 388 F . 3d 814, 818- 19 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng 8 C . F . R . §§ 208. 13( a ) , 208. 16( b) ) . I f a n I Jw i s he s t o m a ke a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf

in d in g , h e m u s t d o s o e x p lic itly , Y ang v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. ,7

418 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd i f the I Jf a i l s t o do s o, “ the appl i c a ntor w i tn e s s s h a l l h a v e ar e b u tt ab l e p r e s u mp t i o n o f c r e d i b i l i tyo n ap p e a l . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( iii) . A c c o r d in g ly , b e c au s e th e I Jd idn o t m a k e a n e x p lic it d et erm i n at i o n th atM ari n ’ s t est i m o n y w as n o tcred i b l e, M ari n ’ s t est i m o n y h as a r e b u ttab le p r e s u m p tio n o f c r e d ib ilityo n ap p e a l. 2 . M a r in ’s C la im I n s e e ki ng a s y l um , M a r i n’ s bur de n w a s t o “ e s t abl i s h ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c o u n t o f

h e rp o litic a l o p in io n o ra n yo th e rp r o te c te dg r o u n d , o r( 2 ) a‘w e llfo u n d ed fear’ th ath er p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n o r an y o th er p ro t ect ed g ro u n dw i l l cau se future pers ec ut i on . ” Se

pulv e da , 40 1 F . 3d at12 30 -31 (ci t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), (b)) . “ A show 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 ar , ’ subj ec tt o rebutt al by the [gov ernm ent ] . ” I d. a t 1 2 3 1 ; se e al

so A nt i po va v. U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 1259, 1265- 66 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( va c a t i ng and r e m a ndi ng t o the B IA for afi nd i ng re gardi ng pastpers ec ut i on and the appl i cabi l i ty of a p r e s u m p tio n o f

af u tu r e th r e a t to ap p lic a n t) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t M a r in s u f f ic ie n tly dem on stra t ed pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof her pol i t i ca l op i ni on t o rai se a p r e s u m p tio n o f

w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r . P er se cut i on i s “ an extre m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than a few i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on . ” Se pulv e da , 4 0 1 F .3 da t 1 2 3 1 . W e r e c e n tlyd e te rm in e d th a t “in te n tio n a llyb e in g s h o t a t in am o v in g c a rm u ltip le8

tim e s ” c o n s titu te s p e r s e c u tio n . Sa nchez-Ji m enez , 4 9 2 F .3 dat 1 2 3 3 . T h u s, M ar in ’s pr e s um pt i ve l yc r e di bl e , unr e butt e d a l l e ga t i ons c onc e rni ng the a tt a c k s he e xpe r i e nc e d w hi l e dr i vi ng hom e f r om c l a s s on J une 3, 2003 c om pe l s the c o n c lu s io n th a t s h e s u f

f e r e d p e r s e c u tio n . T he ne xtque s t i on i s w he the rthe r e c or d c om pe l s the c onc l us i on tha tthe p ersecu t i o n M ari n su ffered w as on ac c ount of he rpol i t i c al

opi ni on . T he I Jf

ound th a t M a r in ’s U N A P E T R O L in v o lv e m e n t, w h ic h a lle g e d lyin c lu d e dle a d e r s h ip act i v i t i es, co m m u n i ty p resen t at i o n s, si g n atu re co l l ect i n g , m eet i n g s an dm arch es, di d nota de qua t e l yde m ons tr a t e pol i t i c a l opi ni on. W e ne e d notr e a c h the que s t i on of w he the rM a r i n he l d the r e qui s i t e pol i t i c a l opi ni on, how e ve r , be c aus e w e ha ve re cogn i ze d thatan al i en’ s i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on can sat i sf y the re qu i re m entthat p e r s e c u tio n b e b a s e d o n ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 257 F . 3d 1262, 12 89 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ An asy l um appl i cantm ayprevai l on a theory of i m pu t ed 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 lya ttr ib u te [ d ] a n o p in io n to [h i m ] , an d th en p ersecu t e[d ] [h i m ] b ecau se o f th atm i st ak en b el i ef ab o u t[h i s] v i ew s. ”) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ) (al t erat i o n s i n o ri g i n al ). A cco rd i n g l y, despi t e the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatM ar i n d i d n otsuff i ci ent l y dem on stra t e pol i t i ca l opi ni on, M a r i n c oul d s t i l l ha ve s a t i s f i e d the r e qui r e m e nti f

he rt e s t i m ony e s t abl i s he d tha tthe pe r s e c ut or s w e r e m ot i va t e d byw ha tthe ype r c e i ve d t o be M a r in ’s p o litic a l o p in io n .9

M a r i n’ s t e s t i m onyc onc e rni ng the thr e a t e ni ng c a l l a nd the a tt a c ke r s ’ ha nd ge s tur e i ndi c a t i ng a l l e gi a nc e t o C ha ve z c om pe l s the c onc l us i on tha tthe pe r s e c ut i on s he s uf f e r e d w a s on a c c ountof

pol i t i c a l opi ni on. M a r i n r e c e i ve d the thr e a t e ni ng p h o n e cal l o n th e m o rn i n g o f th e att ack , an dw as t o l dth atsh e w o u l d“ p ay d earl y” un l es s s he st op ped p rot es t i ng agai nstC havez. T he ca l l erspec i fi ca l l y t ol d h erthat h e k n e w h e rc l a s s s c h e d u l e a n d th e a tt a c ko c c u rr e da s M a r i n w a s o n h e rw a yh o me f r o m c la s s la te rth a t d a y . T h e a tta c k e r s m a d e h an dg e s tu r e s in d ic a tin g th e ir al l egi ance t o C havez as they drove aw ay . T he ca l l erand att ac kers , there fore , cl earl y act ed b ecau se o f th e p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n th ey i m p u t ed t o M ari n . A cco rd i n g l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe evi dence M ar i n o ff er ed com pel s the fi nd i ng thatshe s uffe re d p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h e rp o litic a l o p in io n . A t th is p o in t, th e I Js h o u ldh a v e s h if te dth e b u r d e n to th e g o v e rn m e n t to r e b u t th e p r e s u m p tio n th a t M a r in h a daw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . CONCL US I ON We d i s m i s s Ma r i n ’ s p e t i t i o n a s t o th e wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l a n dC AT cl ai m s. W e vac at e the IJ ’ s dec i si on as t o asy l um , ho w ever , and rem and t o the B IA t o gi ve the gove rnm e ntthe opportuni tyt o r e butthe pr e s um pt i on tha tM a r i n ha d 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 . P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D I N P AR T , DI S MI S S E D I N P AR T , AN D RE MAND E D.