FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 28, 2006 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. 06- 11833 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 508- 350 N O H R A Y O L A N D A O C A M P O - R O N C A N C I 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H 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: N oh raY ol anda O ca m po -R on ca nci o, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C ol om bi a, pe t i t i o ns thi s C our tf

orr e vi e w of

the f i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i onOcampo-Roncanc io asserts no claim concer ning the denial of CAT relief , although in her 1 brief, she does m ention that such relief was denied in lay ing out the underlying procedural history and facts. Acc ording ly , she is deeme d to have a bandoned a

ny argument concerning the denial of CAT relief

. See S epulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (notingthat wh e n a n a pp e lla nt f ails to raiseany

c halleng eto t

hedenial of CA T re lie f in h e r b ri e f, that is su eis abandone d). 2 A p p e a ls ( B I A ) , w h ic h a f f ir m e d th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( I J ’s ) o r d e r o f r e m o v a l. T he IJ foun d thatO ca m po -R on ca nci o’ s a sy l um cl ai m w as t i m e- b arred and denie d her r equest s f

or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on an d N at i on al i ty A ct (“ IN A ”) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3), and h er cl ai m for prot ec t i on un der the U ni t ed 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, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . O n ap p e a l , O c a m poR onc a nc i o a r gue s tha t : ( 1) he ra s y l um ap p l i c a t i on w a s i m pr ope r l y de ni e d ba s e d on the IN A ’ s one-y ear t i m e l i m it at i on for f i l i ng as yl um appl i ca t i on s, and (2) the IJ a nd the B I A e rr e d by de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l ba s e d on he rf a i l ur e t o e s t a bl i s h he rm e m be r s hi p i n a s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr oup. O c a m poR o n c a n c io u r g e d th a t s h e w a s a m e m b e ro f a s o c ia l g r o u p p e r s e c u te d b y th e C a li C a r t e l by vi r tue of

he rrefu sal t o tr a ns por tc oc a i ne , on be ha l f of the C a r t e l , f

r om C o lo m b ia to th e U n ite d S ta te s . W e d is m is s th e p e titio n in p a r t f o rla c k o f

s u b je c t- 1 m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , a n d d e n y it in p a r t. In th e c as e a t b ar , th e B IA is s u e d a d ec isio n in w h ich itad o p ted th e I J’s re as o n in g w it h o u t m ak in g ad d it io n al fin d in g s. “W e th er ef o re re v iew th e I J’s3

de c i s i on a s i f

i tw e r e the B I A ’ s . ” W e i C he n v. U . S . A t t ’ y G e n. , - - - F . 3d - - - - , 2006 W L 25 70 87 0 at*2 (1 1 th C i r. S ept . 8, 20 06 ). W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s f ac tual d e te r m in a tio n s u s in g th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, m e a n in g th a t w e m u s t a f f ir m if the de c i s i on “ i s su ppor t e d by r e a s ona bl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . ” F or gue v. U . S . A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( citati o n an d q u o tati o n m ar k s o m itted ). In o rd erto r e v e r s e th e I J’s d e c is io n , w e m u s t f

in d th a t th e r e c o r d n o t o n ly s u p p o r ts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e ls it. S ee F ahi m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 27 8 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 18 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). W e revi ew q u e s tio n s o f

s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n a n d c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s in i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ngs de novo. S e e L ony e m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 352 F . 3d 1338, 1341 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s ) ; M e n d o za v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 n. 5 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on ). O n appe a l , O c a m po- R onc a nc i o f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe I J a nd the B I A e r r e d by appl y i ng the one - y e a rt i m e l i m i tf orf i l i ng a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on. O cam poR on ca nci o arr i ved i n th e U n it ed S t at es on F ebruary3, 19 99 , bu tdi d n otfi l e her as yl um pet i t i on un der O ct ob er5, 20 01 . “ A n asy l um appl i ca t i on m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n 1 y e a ra f

t e rthe da t e of

the al i e n’ s a r r i va l i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” C ha c onB o t e r o v . U. S . Att ’ y Ge n . , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; I NA § 208( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . A n unt i m e l y appl i c a t i on “ m a y be c o n s id e r e d . . . if

th e a lie n d e m o n s tr a te s . . . e x tr a o r d in a r y c ir c u m s t a n c e s r e la tin g toPub. L . 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (REAL ID Act) . After

passag e of the REAL

ID Act, wehave 2 jurisdiction to review que stions of la w raised in the petition for review . Tovar- Alvare z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 427 F .3d 1350, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2005). 4 th e d e l a y i n f

i l i n g a n ap p l i c a t i o n . ” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ( e mp h a s i s a dde d) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . Th e d e t e r mi n a t i o n a s t o w h e th e ra n a l i e n c a n a pp l y f o ra s y l u m, how e ve r , i s l e f

te xcl u si v el y t o the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l a s “ f e de r a l c our t s do notha ve j ur i s di ct i o n t o r e vi e w the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l ’ s de c i s i on a s t o t i m e l i ne s s of s uc h a r e que s t . ” Fa h i m, 2 7 8 F. 3 d a t1 2 1 7 ; s e e a l s o I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1158( a ) ( 3) ( pr ovi di ng th at “ [n ] o c our ts ha l l ha ve the j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny de t e r m i na t i on of

the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l u n d er pa r a gr aph ( 2) [ the pr ovi s i on prov i di ng th at th e one-y ea r t i m e l i m i tm ay be w ai ved i f e xtra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s a r e de m o n s tr a t e d] . ” ) ; M e ndoz a v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng tha t8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) “ d i ve s t s ourC our tof j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a de c i s i on r e ga r di ng w he the ra n a l i e n c om pl i e d w i th the o n e-year ti m e l i m it o r e st ab l i sh ed ex trao rd i n ary ci rcu m st an ces th atw o u l d ex cu se h is u n tim e ly f

ilin g ” ) . In F ahi m , w e hel d thatal tho ug h there i s a“ pres u m pt i on fa vo ri ng j ud i ci al rev i ew , ” w e l ack j u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e A tt o rn ey G en e r a l’s ex trao rd i n aryc i r c u ms t a n c e s d e t e r mi n a t i o n b e c a u s e t he s p e c i f i c s t a tu t o r y l a n g u a g e o f 8 U . S. C. § 1158( a ) ( 3) de m ons tr a t e s tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d t o bar su ch rev i e w . S e e 278 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 7 - 1 8 . A n d , a f te rp a s s a g e o f

th e R E A L I D A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , w e a g a in

2As for O campo- Roncanc io’s argum en t th at the one- year time limi t violates the 3 Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the Third Circuitrec ently reje cted this very

argument. See Suk wa np utra v. Go nzale s, 43 4 F. 3d 62 7, 63 1- 32 (3 d Cir. 20 06 ). Mo resp e c if ic ally, th eTh ird Circuit reje cted the petitioners’ argument, identical to theone madeby Ocampo-Roncanc io, that the oneyear limitprovided in § 1158(a)(2) conflicte d with Article 34 of theUnited Nations C o nv ention Relatingto the Status of Refug ees ( 1951 Convention). I d. at 631. The Thi rdCircuit found no Supremac y

Clause violation beca

use: (1) Article 34 wa s not self-ex ec ut i ng , and, thus, did not provide enforcea

ble rights beyond those grante d by the I NA; and (2) the one- year

limitwas enacte d after the 1951 Conventions and thus was “ last in tim e” a nd, thus, overro d e th e 1951 Convention. I d. at 631-32 &n.3. We too can find no c onstitut ional violation based on the Supremacy Clause. 5 r e c o g n iz e d th a t § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) c o n tin u e s to “d iv e s t[ ] o u rC o u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a d e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie d w ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it o re s ta b lis h e d e x tr a o r d in a r y c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld e x c u s e h is u n tim e ly f ilin g .” C h a c o n - B o t e r o , 4 2 7 F .3 d a t 9 5 7 ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h u s , it is be y ond ourj u ri sdi c t i on t o r e vi e w the e xtr a or di na r y - c i r c um s t a nc e s de t e r m i na t i on a n d w e m u s t d is m is s th e p e titio n in p a r t. 3 T ur ni ng t o O c a m po- R onc a nc i o’ s c ha l l e ng e t o the de ni a l of he rappl i c a t i on for w i thh ol di ng of r e mova l , s he a r gu e s tha t the I J a nd the BI A e r r e d by f i nd i ng t hat s he di d nots uf

f e rpa s tpe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l - f ounded f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. S he cl ai m s thati f s he re turns to C o lom bi a, she w i l l be pers ec ut ed because she w as c o n s ta n tly s o lic ite d b y , a n d r e c e iv e d d e a th th r e a ts f r o m , m e m b e r s o f t h e C a li C a r t e l , e ve n a f

t e rs he m ove d hour s a w a y f r om B ogot a , butd i d n o t rep o r tthe s itu a tio n to th e p o lic e b e c a u s e s h e f e a r e d f o rh e rs a f

e ty . A n a l i en i s en t i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f s he c a n s how tha the rl i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof he rr a c e , rel i g i on,6

na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i cu l ar s oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ; s e e a ls o I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) , 8 U . S .C . § 12 31 (b)( 3)(A ). T he asylu m ap pl i ca ntca rr i es the bu rden of prov i ng st atut ory

“ r e f uge e” st atu s. S ee A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . T he appl i ca ntsa t i sf

i es thi s burden b y s ho w i ng , w i th speci fi c a nd cr edi bl e e vi dence: (1) past pers ec ut i on on ac coun t of a st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a “w ell-fo un ded f e a r ” o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . R u iz v . U . S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f b o th th e p a s t- a n d f u tu r e - p e r s e c u tio n t e s ts re qu i re s the ap p li ca n t t o sho w thatthe al l eged perse cut i on w as “ on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . ” S ee S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’y G en ., 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( d is c u s s in g tw o - p r o n g e d te s ts f o rp a s t a n d f

u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n ) . H er e, su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s d ec isio n , as w e ll as th e I J’s f in d in g , th a t O c a m p o - R o n c a n c io d id n o t e s t a b l is h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o ra 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 b e c a u s e s h e d id n o t e s ta b lis h h e rm e m b e r s h ip in a s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t ed g ro up. T o m e e the rbur de n, O c a m po- R onc a nc i o c l a i m e d s he w a s a m e m b e ro f

a s o c ia l g r o u p - - p e r s o n s w h o h a v e b e e n a s k e d , b u t r e f u s e d , to c a r r y drugs on be ha l f o f t h e C a l i C a r t e l , f r om C ol om bi a t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he IJ sai d th ath e “ co u l d n o tfi n d th atan i m m u t ab l e ch aract eri st i c ex i sts t o est ab l i sh th a t [ O c a m p o - O n c a n c io ] is a m e m b e ro f a p a r tic u la r s o c ia l g r o u p .” W e r e c e n tly c ons i de r e d w he the ra n C ol om bi a n a s y l um appl i c a ntc oul d e s t abl i s h r e f uge e s t a tus7

b ased o n h i s m em b ersh i p i n a g ro u p o f “ n o n cri m i n al i n fo rm an t s w o rk i n g ag ai n st the C al i drug ca rt el .” C as ti ll o-A ri as v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 6 F . 3d 11 90 (11t h C i r. 2006) . W e obs e r ve d the f ol l ow i ng: C o n g ress d i d n o td i rect l y sp eak o n th e is s u e o f w h atco n st i tu t es a “ part i cul ar soci al grou p, ” on e of the fi ve l i st ed ca t egori es thatq u al i fy f orr e f uge e s t a tus orw i thhol d i n g of de por t a t i on, w i thi n the m e a ni ng o f the I N A . A c c or di ngl y , w e m us tf ol l ow the B I A ’ s de t e r m i na t i on th a t n o n c r im in a l in f

o r m a n ts w o r k in g a g a in s t th e C a li c a r te l a r e n o t a soci al grou p u nd erthe IN A un l es s the i nt erpret at i on i s unrea sonabl e, i . e . , a rb i tr a r y , c ap r i c i o u s , o rc l e a r l y c o n tr a r y t o l a w. I d. a t1196 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e f ound r e a s ona bl e , f

orpurpos e s of

e s t a bl i s hi ng th e e x isten ce o f a “so cial g ro u p ” w ith in th e m ea n in g o f th e I N A , th e B IA ’s r e q u i rem en t o f a “ co m m o n , i m m u t ab l e ch aract eri st i c . . . [th at ] i s fu n d am en t a l to [i t s m em bers ’ ] i nd i vi du al i dent i t i es or consci ence s” -- the very st and ar d the I J appl i e d t o O c a m po- R onc a nc i o’ s appl i c a t i on he r e. I d. a t1196- 97 ( c i t i ng M a tt e rof A c os t a , 19 I . & N . D e c . 211, 233- 34 ( B I A 1985) , ove r rul e d on othe rgr ounds by Ma tt e ro f

Mo g h a r r a b i , 1 9 I . & N . De c . 4 3 9 , 4 4 7 ( B I A 1 9 8 7 ) ) . On th i s r e c o r d , we c a n di s c e r n n o l e g a l e r r o ri n th e I J ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f

a “ s o c i a l g r o u p , ” n o rd o e s the reco rd co m p el rev ersi n g an y o f th e IJ’ s factu al fi n d i n g s. B as ed on O ca m po -R on ca nci o’ s fa i l ure t o i dent i fy a st atut ori ly p ro te ct ed s oc i a l gr oup, of

w hi c h s he w a s a m e m be r , the I J di d not e r rby de ny i ng the pe t i t i onT h e I Jalso found that Oc ampo-Ronca nio presente d no evidenc e that the Cali Carte l ever 4 attempted to har

m her, but had thre atene d her only once a fter shestated that she would file a report with the police. In addition, Ocampo- Roncanc io describe d telephone calls, duringwhich the c aller rec ruited her

to eng ag e in dru gtraff icking . Although theI NA does not e xpressly

define “per secution,” w e havestated that “persecuti o n i s an extreme conc ept, re quiringmore than a few isolated incidents of verbal hara ssment or intimi dation,” and “ [m ]ere harassment does not amount to p e rs e c uti on .”Sepulve da , 4 01 F .3 d at 12 31 (q uo tatio ns and

c itatio n o mi tt ed; altera

tio n in orig inal). In addition to our conclusion that the IJdid not err by findingno statutorily

protec ted social group, wealso observethat the re cord doe s not compel reversingthe IJ ’s findingthat the passag e of over five year s since Oc ampo was solicited by the woman from the drugcar tel sug g ested that Ocampo would not be contac ted by the ca rtel in the future . M o re o v er , even a ssuming that Ocampo was called on the telephone by the drug car tel specific ally

beca use of her status as a person who re fused to ca

rry drug s to the United St at es , th i s tre atment would not rise to the leve l of perse cution under theI

NA. 8 f or w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the pe t i t i on a s t o the 4 w i th h o l d i n g c l a i m. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.