FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 10 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 87 -3 78 -4 98

RICAR DO CALDERON GO MEZ,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er,

ve rs us
U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 28 , 20 11
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Ri card o Cal de ro n Gom ez se ek s rev ie w of th e Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) fin al or de r affi rm in g th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of hi s ap pl ic at io n
fo r as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al u nd er th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act(“ INA”), an d rel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nati on s Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e an d Oth er

C r u e l , In hu m an or Deg rad in g Treat m en t or Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”). On ap pe al , Cal de ro n G om ez arg ue s th at th e BIA erre d in de te rm in in g th at he ha d fai le d to

es ta bl is h pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. He as se rts th at th e BIA err e d b y de te rm in in g th at th e 1

pe rs ecu ti on th at he face d was no t on acco un t of on e of th e fiv e en um erat ed gr ou nd s
fo r as y lu m , s pe ci fic al ly h is im pu te d po li ti ca l o p i n io n, as he ha d es ta bl is he d th at he
ha d be en pe rs ecu te d be cau se he ha d act iv el y wor ke d wit h th e U Part y by pa rti ci pa ti ng
in so ci al cam

pa ig ns an d pr ov id i n g fo od to di sp la ced co m m un it ie s. Fu rth erm or e,
Cal de ro n Gom ez arg ue s th at he ha d es ta bl is he d th at hi s fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on

acco un t of im

pu te d po li ti cal op in io n was reas on ab le

. W it h res p e c t t o t h e BIA’s
d e t e r mi n a ti on th at hi s te st im on y was no t cred ib le , Cal de ro n Gom ez as se rts th at he
ha d fil le d ou t hi s I-5 89 ap pl ic at io n wit h th e as si st an ce of a “ no n- tra in ed in di vi du al ,”

an d th at th e BIA was pu ni sh in g hi m fo r no t ob ta in in g th e as si st an ce of an at to rn ey to
he lp hi m wit h t he ap pl ic at io n.
W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ci si on as th e f i n a l ju dg m en t, un le ss th e BIA ha s

On appe al, Calderon G omez asserts that, in addition to the threats and e x tortion from 1 the United Self-D efe nses of Colombia (“A UC”), F ARC had also threa tened him and e x torted money from him. The fir st tim e that Calder on Gomez claimed that F ARC had threa tened him was in his BI A appe llate brief , but at no point in his asy lum application, the asy lum interview, or the hea ring did he claim to be pe rsec uted in any way by FARC. Ther e is no rec ord evide nce supporting this conte ntion, and we c annot consider fac ts not raised in the administrative for um. See Adef emi v. Ashcrof

t, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) ( en banc ).

2ex pr es sl y ad op te d th e IJ ’s de ci si on

. Ru iz v. Gon zal es , 47 9 F.3 d 76 2, 76 5 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 07 ). In th at cas e, we rev ie w t he IJ ’s d eci si on as well

. Id

. Here, th e BIA di d no t

ex pr es sl y ad op t th e IJ ’s de ci si on , an d, th eref or e, we rev ie w on ly th e BIA’s de ci si on

. See id

. The BIA’s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns are rev ie wed un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

te st

. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F. 3 d 1 2 8 2, 12 86 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). W e wil l
affi rm th e BIA’s de ci si on “ if it is su pp or te d by reas on ab le , su bs ta nt ia l, an d pr ob at iv e

ev id en ce on th e reco rd co ns id ered as a who le .” Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 25 7 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Und er th is te st , we
vi ew th e reco rd ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab l e to th e ag en cy ’s de ci si on an d
dr aw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th at de ci si on . Ad efem i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86

F.3 d 10 22 , 10 27 (1 1t h Cir. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). Acco rd in gl y , “ [t]o co nc lu de th e BIA’s
de ci si on sh ou ld b e r ev ers ed , we m us t fin d th at th e reco rd no t on ly su pp or ts th e

co nc lu si on , bu t co m

pe ls it .” Ru iz , 47 9 F.3d at 76 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. W he n an ap pe ll an t fai ls to of fer arg um en t on an is su e, th at is su e is
ab an do ne d. Sep ul ve da v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F.3 d 12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ).

W e rev ie w ou r su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo

. See Gon zal ez-Or op eza v.
U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 32 1 F.3 d 13 31 , 13 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). A pe ti ti on er m us t ha ve

ex ha us te d al l ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s th at are av ai la bl e as of rig ht

. INA § 24 2( d) (1 );

38 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ). W e tre at th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t as juri sd ic ti on al , an d so

we m us t co ns id er whe th er we ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er an is su e ev en if th e is su e is no t
rai se d by th e pa rti es

. See Su nd ar v. INS , 32 8 F.3 d 13 20 , 13 23 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (n ot in g th at th is Co ur t “ la ck [s ] juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er cl ai m s th at ha ve no t be en
rai se d be fo re th e BIA”)

. Th us , if an al ie n fai ls to ch al le ng e an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n in hi s ap pe al to th e BIA, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er s u c h a
ch a l l e n g e i n hi s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w, ev en if th e BIA ha s co ns id ered th e is su e su a

sp on te

. See Am ay a-Art un du ag a v
. U .S. Att ’y Gen ., 46 3 F.3 d 12 47 , 12 49 -5 1 (1 1t h
Ci r. 20 06 ).

An a l i en who arri ve s in , or is pr es en t in , th e Uni te d St at es m ay ap pl y fo r

as y lu m

. 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 1)

. Th e U.S. Att or ne y Gen eral or th e Secr et ary of th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y h a s di sc ret io n to gr an t as y lu m if th e al ie n m eet s
th e INA’s de fin it io n o f a “ refu ge e.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ). A “ refu ge e” i s d efi ne d

in th e INA as :

an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of su ch pe rs on ’s nat io na li ty .

. . an d wh o i s u na bl e o r un wil li ng to ret ur n t o, an d i s u na bl e o r un wil li ng to av ai l hi m se lf or he rs el f of th e p ro te ct io n of

, t ha t co un try b ecau se of pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of race , re lig ion , na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or pol iti ca l op in io n . . . .
8 U.S.C. § 11 01 ( a )(4 2) (A). The as y lu m ap pl ic an t carr ie s th e bu rd en of

4pr ov in g st at ut or y “ refu ge e” st at us

. Najjar, 25 7 F.3 d at 12 84

. To es ta bl is h as y lu m

el ig i bi li ty th e al ie n m

us t, wit h sp eci fic cred ib le ev id en ce, es ta bl is h (1 ) pa st

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of a st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed fact or , or (2 ) a “ well -fo un de d fear ”
th at th e st at ut or il y li st ed fact or wil l cau se su ch pe rs ecu ti on

. 8 C

. F

. R. § 20 8.1 3( b) ;
Si lv a v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 4 48 F.3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

Pas t pe rs ecu ti on i s e s t a b li sh ed whe n th e ap pl ic an t sh ows th at (1 ) he was

pe rs ecu te d, an d (2 ) th e pe rs ecu ti on was on acco un t of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. Si lv a, 44 8

F.3 d at 12 36

. An al ie n who ha s no t sh own pa st pe rs ecu ti on m ay st il l be en t i tl ed to

as y lu m or wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al if he can de m on st rat e a fu tu re th reat in hi s co un try

to hi s li fe or free do m on th e ba si s of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. To es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d
fear , an ap pl ic an t m

us t de m on st rat e th at hi s fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on is su bjec ti ve ly

ge nu in e an d ob

jecti ve ly reas on a b l e

. N ajjar, 25 7 F.3 d at 12 89 -9 0. The al ie n m us t
sh ow a ne xu s be twee n a st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd an d th e fear ed pe rs ecu ti on , an d
he can do so by pr es en ti ng “ sp eci fic , de ta il ed fact s sh owi ng a go od reas on to fear th at
h e o r s h e wil l be si ng le d ou t fo r pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of ” th e st at ut or il y li st ed
fact or . Forg ue , 40 1 F .3d at 1 28 6 (q uo ta ti on s an d e m ph as is om it te d)

. To qu al ify fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e INA, th e ap pl ic an t m us t sh ow
th at if ret ur ne d to hi s co un try, hi s “ li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed in th at co un try
be cau se of [ hi s] race, re li gi on , na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p,

5or po li ti cal op in io n.” INA § 24 1( b) (3 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). The pe ti ti on er

m us t de m on st rat e th at it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at he wil l be pe rs ecu te d or to rtu red

up on rem ov al to he r co un try. Tan v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 6 F.3 d 13 69 , 13 75 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 06 )

. Gen eral ly, whe n an al ie n fai ls to m eet th e “ well

- f o u n d e d f ear” st an da rd fo r

es ta bl is hi ng as y lu m el ig ib il it y , th e al ie n can no t es ta bl i s h th e hi gh er bu rd en fo r
wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Najj ar, 2 57 F.3d at 1 29 2- 93

. An ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y , if cred ib le , m ay carr y th e bu rd en of pr o o f w i t h o ut

co rro bo rat io n. 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a). A la ck of cred ib il it y al on e m ay su f f i c ie nt ly

su pp or t a de ni al of re l i ef, es pe ci al ly if th e ap pl ic an t fai le d to pr of fer co rro bo rat in g

ev id en ce to su pp or t th e cl ai m

. Kue vi ak oe v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 56 7 F.3 d 13 01 , 13 04 -0 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). Howev er, ev en if th e IJ m ak es an ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n,
th e IJ m us t st il l co ns id er al l ev id en ce in tro du ced by th e ap pl ic an t. Fo rg ue , 40 1 F.3 d

at 12 87 . Gener al ly, “ [t]he weak er an ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y
. . . t he gre at er t he ne ed
fo r co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Yan g v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 41 8 F.3 d 11 98 , 12 01 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 05 ). Eve n w he n an ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y is cred ib le , th e REAL ID Act of 20 05

pr ov id es th at , whe re th e IJ ha s de te rm in ed th at th e ap pl ic an t sh ou ld pr ov id e

co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce, “ su ch ev id en ce m us t b e p ro vi de d u nl es s t he ap pl ic an t d oe s

no t ha ve th e ev id en ce an d can no t reas on ab ly ob ta i n th e ev id en ce.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ). Fu rth erm or e, “ [n ]o co ur t sh al l rev ers e a de te rm in at io n m ad e by

6a tri er of fact wit h res pe ct to th e av ai la bi li ty of co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce

. . . un le ss th e

co ur t fin ds

. . . th at a reas on ab le tri er of fact is co m pe ll ed to co nc lu de th at su ch

co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e is un av ai la bl e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (4 ).
Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we de ny th e pe ti ti on

. The BIA de ni ed Cal de ro n Gom ez
rel ie f on fiv e in de pe nd en t gr ou nd s: (1 ) Cal de ro n Gom ez di d no t te st ify cred ib ly; (2 )
he di d no t pr ov id e reas on ab ly av ai la bl e co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce; (3 ) th e ha rm al le ge d
di d no t ris e to th e le ve l of pe rs ecu ti on ; (4 ) he di d no t ha ve an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

an d su bs ta nt iv el y ge nu in e fear of ret ur ni ng to Co lu m bi a; an d (5 ) he fai le d to es ta bl is h

a n ex us be twee n t he cla im ed pe rs ecu ti on an d a pro te ct ed gro un d.
Cal de ro n Gom ez pr op erl y c ha ll en ge s on ly th e fif th gr ou nd on ap pe al

. Cal de ro n Gom ez ha s ab an do ne d an y ch al le ng e to th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n th at he was

no t pe rs ecu te d as a m em be r of a sp eci fic so ci al gr ou p, th a t h e f a i l ed to su bm it

reas on ab ly av ai la bl e co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce, th at hi s rep eat ed r e t ur n to Co lo m bi a
aft er vi si ti ng th e Uni te d St at es di d no t su pp or t th e ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss or

su bjec ti ve ge nu in en es s of hi s fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on , or th at he was in el ig ib le fo r
wit hh ol d i n g u n d e r CAT, b ecau se he ha s fai le d to rai se th es e is su es on ap pe al

. See Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3d at 1 22 8 n .2.

Mo reo ve r, Cal de ro n Gom ez’s as se rti on regar din g the BI A ’ s ad ve rse cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n -- th at th e BIA w as pu ni sh in g h im for no t o bt ai ni ng th e as si st an ce o f

7a la wy er in fi l l i n g ou t hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n -- is no t su ffi ci en t to pr es erv e a

ch al le ng e to th e BIA’s a d v e r s e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n. Eve n th ou gh th e BIA

a d dr es se d su a sp on te th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, Cal de ro n Gom ez fai l e d t o
ch al le ng e th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n i n e it he r hi s no ti ce of ap pe al or
br ie f be fo re th e BIA, an d th us we la ck juri sd ic ti on reg ard in g th is is su e. See Am ay aArtu nd ua ga , 46 3 F .3d at 1 25 0- 51

. 2

Bec au se th es e un ch al le ng ed gr ou nd s are in de pe nd en tl y su ffi ci en t to pr ecl ud e

gr an ti ng Cal de ro n Go m ez re li ef, we d en y th e p et it io n.
PETI TI ON DENI ED.

I n any event, e ven if Calder on Gomez’s testimony was de termined to be c redible, 2 substantial evidence supports the BI A’s dete rmination that Calderon Gome z was ineligible f or asy lum or withholding of r emoval bec ause he had fa iled to establish that he had suff ere d past perse cution beca

use of his political beliefs or imputed politi cal be liefs or that he had a w ellfounded f ear of future perse cution. Fur thermore , the fa ct that Calderon G omez returned to Colombi a fr om the United States on two occ asions afte r the a lleg ed eve nts took place doe s not support -- indee d, it strongly undermines - - a c onclusion that he had a well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution. Calderon Gome z has also failed to establish any nexus between the a lleg ed perse cution and his political beliefs or a ny imputed politi cal be liefs bec ause he has fa iled to show that the AUC wa s awa

re of his polit ical belief

s or that it sought to over come a political stance that he held or

that the AUC believe d he held. See For g ue, 401 F .3d at 1286. Having failed to meet the standa

rd for establishing a sy lum eligibility , Calderon Gome z cannot establish the hig her burden f or withholding of

remova l. See Najjar , 257 F.3d a t 1292-93.

8