FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DECEMBER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 02 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -4 73 -8 20

FERNANDO RAUL CHAVEZ -OCAMP O,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r,

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

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 22 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:Fern an do Ch av ez-Oc am po, a na tiv e an d ci tiz en of Co lom bi a, ap pe al s th e Bo ard

of Imm i gr at io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) or de r affi rm in g th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”)

di sm is sa l of hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m as un ti m el y an d de ni al of wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al un de r 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 Cru el , 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 , Ch av ez-Oc am po arg ue s th at th e IJ ’s

ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng is no t su pp or te d in th e reco rd

. Alt ho ug h th e IJ fo un d hi m

no t to be c red ib le be cau se hi s writ te n as y lu m ap pl ic at io n di d no t m en ti on th at

m em be rs of th e Co lo m

bi an Nati on al Lib erat io n Arm y (“ ELN”) cam e to hi s ho us e or

th at th ey as ke d hi m to su pp or t a po li ti cal can di da te of th ei r ch oo si ng ,
C h a v e z-Oca m

po hi gh li gh ts th at th e IJ di d no t di sc red it hi s ex pl an at io ns fo r th e

ap pa ren t di sc rep an ci es

. He al so arg ue s th at hi s cas e sh ou ld be rem an de d be cau se th e

IJ wro ng ly us ed th e as y lu m st an da rd in ev al ua ti ng hi s wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cl ai m

.
As an in it ia l m at te r, be cau se Ch av ez-Oc am po fai le d to rai se an y arg um en ts on

ap p e a l c h a ll en gi ng th e de ni al of hi s un ti m el y as y lu m cl ai m or CAT rel ie f, he ha s

ab an do ne d th es e is su es

. Sep ul ve da v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F.3 d 12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (1 1t h

C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ 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 i s

ab an do ne d.” ). Mo reo ve r, ev en if Ch av ez-Oc am po ha d rai se d th e ti m el in es s is su e, we

2wou ld la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w ei th er th e IJ ’s or th e BIA’s de ci si on as to th at is su e.

See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 3) (p recl ud in g ou r rev ie w of th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n th at an

as y lu m ap pl ic at io n i s t im e-b arre d)

.
W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ci si on as th e fin al jud gm en t, un le ss th e BIA ex pr es sl y

ad op te d th e IJ ’s de ci si on

. Kazem zad eh v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 57 7 F.3 d 13 41 , 13 50 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 09 ). W he n th e BIA ex pl ic it ly ag rees wit h th e fin di ng s of th e IJ , we wil l rev ie w

th e de ci si on of bo th th e BIA an d th e IJ as to th os e is su es

. Ay al a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen .,
60 5 F.3d 94 1, 94 7- 48 (1 1t h Cir. 2 01 0)

. Bec au se th e BIA exp res sl y ag reed wit h th e

IJ ’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng , as well as th e IJ ’s de te rm inati on tha t Ch av ez -Ocam

po

fai le d to es ta bl is h a ne xu s to a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , we wil l rev ie w th e de ci si on s of bo th

th e BIA an d t he IJ o n t he se is su es . See Kazem zad eh , 57 7 F .3d at 1 35 0

.
W e rev ie w de no vo th e BIA’s co nc lu si on s of la w, bu t rev ie w fact ua l fin di ng s

un de r th e hi gh ly de fere nt ia l su bs t a n ti al ev id en ce te st

. Id

. at 13 50 -5 1. Und er th e

su bs ta nt ia l e v i d e n ce te st , we m ay rev ers e a fin di ng of fact “ on ly whe n th e reco rd

co m pe ls a rev ers al ; t he m ere f act th at th e rec or d m ay

su pp or t a co nt rary con cl us io n

is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of th e ad m in is tra ti ve fi n d i n g s.” Ade fem i v.

Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ).

To qu al ify fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e INA, an al ie n m us t sh ow th at

it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at , if ret ur ne d to hi s co un try, hi s li fe or free do m wou ld be

3th reat en ed on acco un t of race , rel ig io n, 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 po li ti cal op in io n. 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A); Men do za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen .,
32 7 F.3 d 12 83 , 12 87 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). An a l i e n c an m eet th is bu rd en by sh owi ng

ei th er: (1 ) pa st pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n a pro te ct ed gr ou nd , wh ic h crea te s a reb ut ta bl e

pr es um pt io n th at hi s li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed if he ret ur ne d to hi s co un try;

or (2 ) a fu tu re th reat t o h i s li fe or free do m on a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd in hi s co un try.

Men do za, 32 7 F.3 d at 12 87

. Thi s st an d a r d i s mo r e st rin ge nt th an th e st an da rd fo r

as y lu m . Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3d at 1 23 2. Acco rd in gl y , a n al ie n who fai ls to est ab li sh

el ig ib il it y fo r a sylum is ge ne ral ly pr ecl ud ed fro m sa ti sf y in g th e hi gh er bu rd en fo r

wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Id. at 12 32 -3 3.

Pers ecu ti on is an “ ex tre m e co nc ep t, req ui rin g m or e th an a fe w is ol at ed

in ci de nt s of ve rb al ha ras sm en t or in ti m id at io n.” Id

. at 12 31 (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. To

cl ai m pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of po li ti cal op in io n, th e ap pl ic an t “ m us t es ta bl is h th at

th e gu eri ll as pe rs ecu te d [h im ] or wil l se ek to pe rs ecu te [h im ] be cau se of [h is ] act ua l

or im pu te d po li ti cal op in io n.” San ch ez v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 39 2 F.3 d 43 4, 43 8 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 04 ). “ It is no t en ou gh to sh ow th at [h e] was or wil l be pe rs ecu te d or to rtu red

du e to [hi s] refu sa l t o c oo pe rat e wit h . . . gu eri ll as .” Id

.
The REAL ID Act of 20 05 pr ov id es th at an ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n

m ay be ba se d on in co ns is te nc ie s th at do no t go “ to th e he art of th e ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m .”

48 U

. S

. C

. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Bec au se Ch av ez-Oc am po ’s ap pl ic at io n was fil ed

be fo re May 11 , 20 05 , th e effe ct iv e da te of th es e am en dm en ts , th es e am en dm en ts do

no t ap pl y to hi s cl ai m s. Sh ka m bi v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 58 4 F.3 d 10 41 , 10 49 n.7 (1 1t h

C i r

. 20 09 ). Here, as in Sh ka m bi , we ne ed no t res ol ve “ whe th er ad ve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns in pre -REAL ID Act ca se s m us t be bas ed on in co ns is te nc ie s t ha t g o

to th e he art of th e cl ai m be cau se th e in co ns is te nc ie s id en ti fie d by th e IJ an d th e BIA

in th is cas e rel at e di rect ly to [Ch av ez-Oc am po ’s] c l a i ms o f pe rs ecu ti on .” Id

. The

in co ns is te nc ie s b et ween Ch av ez-Oc am po ’s 20 04 acco un t i n h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n

an d in te rv ie w ab ou t ho w an d why th e ELN were pe rs ecu ti ng hi m an d hi s acco un t of

th e ev en ts du rin g h is 20 10 he ari ng di rect ly relat e to hi s cl ai m of p ers ecu ti on

.
An IJ ’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are al so fact ua l fin di ng s su bjec t to

th e su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e te st , an d th eref or e m ay no t be ov ert ur ne d un le ss th e reco rd

ne ces si ta te s th e res ul t. Ali m v. Gon zal ez, 44 6 F.3 d 12 39 , 12 54 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). “ As

th e tri er of fact , th e IJ m

us t de te rm in e cred ib il it y , an d th is co ur t m ay no t su bs ti tu te it s
jud gm en t fo r th at of th e IJ wit h res pe ct to cred ib il it y fin di ng s.” Id

. ( qu ot at io n an d

al te rat io n om it te d)

. “ Onc e th e IJ m ak es an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at i o n , t h e

bu rd en is on th e al ie n to sh ow th at th e de te rm in at io n was no t su pp or te d by sp eci fic ,

co ge nt reas on s, or was no t ba se d on su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id

. at 12 54 -5 5 (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

5An ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y , i f cred ib le , m ay be su ffi ci en t to su s ta in hi s bu rd en

of pr oo f, wit ho ut co rro bo rat io n, in es ta bl is hi ng hi s eli gi bi li ty fo r rel ie f fo r rem ov al

.
Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 0 F.3 d 12 47 , 1 2 5 5 ( 1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). “ Co nv ers el y , an

ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n al on e m ay be su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e de ni al of an

as y lu m ap pl ic at io n.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ In di cat io n s of rel ia bl e te st im on y

in cl ud e co ns is te nc y on di rect ex am in at io n, co ns is te nc y wit h th e writ te n ap pl ic at io n,

an d th e ab se nc e of em

be ll is hm en ts .” I d

. “ [A]n ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n

do es no t al le vi at e th e IJ ’s du ty to co ns id er ot he r ev id en ce pr od uc ed b y a n as y lu m

ap pl ic an t.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

. If an ap pl ic an t s ub m it s ev id en ce i n a dd it io n t o

hi s own te st im on y, “i t is no t su ffi ci en t fo r th e IJ to rel y so le ly on an ad ve rs e

cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n i n t ho se in st an ces .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.
Afte r t h o r o ug h rev ie w of th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we de ny th e

pe ti ti on

. The BIA’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n was su p po rte d by sp eci fic ,

co ge nt reas on s, in cl ud in g in co ns is te nc ie s am on g Ch av ez-Oc am po ’s te st im on y at hi s

m eri ts he ari ng , hi s st at em en ts be fo re th e as y lu m of fic er, an d hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n.

Ch av ez-Oc am

po of fere d n o e x p l an at io n as to why he m ad e no m en ti on in hi s

ap pl ic at io n or as y lu m in te rv ie w ab ou t th e ELN co m in g to hi s ho us e, ev en th ou gh he

te st ifi ed at hi s he ari ng th at th is in ci de nt was th e cen t ral m ot iv at io n be hi nd hi s

de ci si on to se nd hi s fam il y to th e Uni te d St at es

. In ad di ti on , at hi s m eri ts he ari ng ,

6Ch av ez-Oc am po in cl u d e d pr ev io us ly om it te d de ta il s, su ch as th e ELN de m an di ng

th at he su pp or t th ei r po li t i cal can di da te , in an ap pa ren t at te m pt to es ta bl is h th e

req ui si te ne xu s be twee n hi s refu sa l to co op erat e wit h th e ELN gu eri ll as an d hi s

po li ti cal op in io n.

In hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, Ch av ez-Oc amp o no te d th at he refu se d to gi ve th e

ELN m ed ic in es he ha d acce ss to whi le wor ki ng wit h a m ed ic al m ob il e un it , an d al so

refu se d to pr in t ELN su bv ers iv e m at eri al s at hi s gr ap hi cs de si gn co mp a n y. Bu t

ne it he r of th es e ep is od es , whi c h a mo u n te d to hi s refu sa l to co op erat e wit h th e

gu eri ll as , es ta bl is he d a req ui si te ne xu s to pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of Ch av ezOcam po ’s act ua l or im

pu te d po li ti cal op in io n. San ch ez, 39 2 F.3 d at 43 8. Mo reo ve r,

it was no t un ti l hi s m eri ts he ari ng in 20 10 th at Ch av ez-Oc am po cl ai m ed th at th e ELN

al so de m an de d th at he su pp or t t h e ir po li ti cal can di da te an d th at th ey cam e to hi s

ho us e. The on ly ex pl an at io n he of fere d fo r th e om is si o n s w a s t h a t he di d no t

rem em be r c e r t a in de ta il s du rin g hi s ap pl ic at io n an d in te rv ie w an d he di d no t

un de rs ta nd th e pr oc ed ur e fo r ap pl y in g fo r a s y lu m

. In ad di ti on , t he ELN co m in g to

hi s ho us e was th e m os t se rio us ep is od e Ch av ez-Oc am po ex pe rie nc ed wit h res pe ct to

pa st pe rs ecu ti on , an d he ne ve r di rect ly ad dr es se d th e IJ ’s ob se rv at io n th at th is sh ou ld

ha ve st oo d ou t in hi s m in d du rin g hi s in it ia l as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, es pe ci al ly gi ve n th at

Ch av ez-Oc am

po te st ifi ed th at th is ev en t tri gg ered hi s dec is io n to se nd hi s fam il y to

7th e Uni te d S ta te s.

F i n al ly, we are un pe rs ua de d by Ch av ez-Oc am po ’s arg um en t th at hi s c a s e

sh ou ld be rem an de d be cau se th e IJ im pr op erl y us ed th e as y lu m st an da rd in ev al ua ti ng

Ch av ez-Oc am

po ’s wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cl ai m

. The st an da rd in wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al cas es is m or e st rin ge nt th an th e st an da rd for asylu m

. Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3d

at 12 32

. Thu s, be cau se th e IJ co nc lu de d th at Ch av ez-Oc am po fai le d to es ta bl is h hi s

el ig ib il it y fo r as y lu m , Ch av ez-Oc am po al so ne ces s a ril y fai le d to sa ti sf y th e hi gh er

bu rd en for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3d at 1 23 2- 33

.
PETI TI ON DENI ED.

8