FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 29, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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 84 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 96 -1 02 -3 53 PANICIA DA SILVA, DAVID FAYE DASILVA, RICAR DO DARIO GONZ ALEZ A LABERN, Peti ti on ers , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 29 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Pan ic iaDa Sil va(“ Da Si lv a”), the lea d p et it io ne r, he r hu sb an d, Ri card oDari o Go nz al ez Al ab ern(“ Ri card o” ), an d h er s on , Davi d F ay e Da Si lv a (“ Dav id ”)

(co ll ect iv el y

“ th e Pet it io ne rs ”), joi nt ly pet it io n fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) ord er aff irming th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of a sylum

pu rs ua ntto th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”) § 20 8, 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 23 1( b) (3 ), an d re li ef un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um an an d Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .16 (c). Th e subs ta nc e o f th ei r arg um en t i s tha t Da Si lv a was pe rs ecu te d i n Gu in ea-B is sau a nd Arg en ti na , andth eref

or e th ey co nt en d t ha t the y

are el ig ib le forasylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. I. Whe re the BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w th atde ci 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 .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Here, we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on be cau se th e BIA i ss ue d i ts ownde ci si on an d d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the op in io n of th e IJ . “ W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w de no vo , with app ro pr ia te de fere nc e to th e BIA’s rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n o f th e [INA].” Ass a’ ad v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 33 2 F .3d13 21 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . W e fo ll ow the BIA’s in te rp ret at io n o f wha t co ns ti tu te s a p art ic ul ar 2so ci al gro up un de r th e INA un le ss th e in te rp ret at io n i s u nr eas on ab le . Se e

Ca st il lo -Ari as v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 96 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). An in te rp ret at io n i s u nr eas on ab le if i t i s arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , or c le arl y co nt rary to la w. Id
. Asylum is on ly avai labl e to ap pl ic an ts who pro ve th atth ey are a “ refu ge e” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e INA. De Sa nt ama ri a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 52 5 F .3d99 9, 10 06 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(A)). To qu al ify as a re fu ge e, anali enm

us t s ho w, with sp eci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce, p as t p ers ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. For gu e v. U.S. At t’y Gen
. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 86 –8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ci ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )). Pers ecu ti on is no t d efi ne d i n t he INA, bu t i t i s “ anex tre m e co nc ep t,” requi rin g m or e th anm ere h aras sm en t. De Sa nt ama ri a , 52 5 F .3dat 1 00 8. In as se ss in g p as t p ers ecu ti on , we con si de r al l the ev id en ce o f m is tre atm en t as a who le , andare “ requi redto co ns id er the cum ul at iv e im

pa ctof the mis tre atm en t the pe ti ti on ers su ffer ed .” Meji a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 49 8 F .3d12 53 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Evi de nc e sh owi ng th atso m eo ne is m erel y a vi ct im of c riminal act iv it y do es no t es tabl is h p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d. Rui

z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). Mere th reat s 3al so do no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on . Se e Silva v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 8 F .3d12 29 ,

12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (fi nd in g t ha t a t hr eat en in g n ot e an d p ho ne cal ls , witho ut m or e, were h aras sm en t, n otpe rs ecu ti on ). A sh owi ng of p as t p ers ecu ti on crea te s a r eb ut tabl e p res um pt io n o f a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Rui z , 44 0 F .3dat 1 25 7 (c it in g 8 C.F.R § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 )). Eve n i f th e ap pl ic an t fa il s t o d em on st rat e p as t p ers ecu ti on , sh e m ay st il l qua li fy

forasylu m

ba se d upo n p ro of

of awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on , whi chm ay

be de m on st rat edby a sub jecti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reas on ab le fear

of p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Rui z , 44 0 F .3dat 12 57
. An ap pl ic an t can e st ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture p ers ecu ti on by pr es en ti ng “ sp eci fic , det ai le d fa ct s s ho win g ago odreas on to fearth athe or s he wil l b e si ng le d o utforpe rs ecu ti on ” o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 6. Pers ecu ti on on acco un t o f m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up m ean s

“pe rs ecu ti on th atis di rect edto wardanin di vi du al who is a m em be r of a gr oup o f pe rs on s al l o f who m

sh are aco m

m on , imm

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c . . . [th at ] is fu nd am en ta l t o t he ir i nd iv idua l i de nt it ie s o r co ns ci en ces .” Mat er of Acos ta , 19 I. & N. Dec. 21 1, 2 33 (BIA 1 98 5) , ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s a s r eco gn iz ed

by Mat te r o f Mo gh arra bi , 19 I. & N. Dec. 43 9 (B IA 19 87 ). Furth erm or e, th e g ro up 4m

us t h av e su ffi ci en t s oc ia l v is ib il it y an d s ho ul d n otbe de fin edso bro ad ly tha t i t be co m es “ a cat ch -al l fo r al l g ro up s wh o m ig htcla im pe rs ecu ti on .” Ca st il lo -Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 7. Th e g ro up m us t n otbe so nu m ero us or i nc ho at e as to ren de r it to o b ro adan d d iv ers e to be su ffi ci en tl y pa rti cu la riz ed . Id
. at11 98 (no ti ng th e ne edfor a un ifyin g re la ti on sh ip or c ha ract eri st ic to na rro w a di ve rs e an d di sc on ne ct edgro up ). II. A. Co nc ern in g Gu in ea-B is sau, the Pet it io ne rs arg ue th atth ey est ab li sh edth ei r el ig ib il it y forasylu m

ba se d upo n p ers ecu ti on Da Sil vasu ffer edon acco un t o f he r m em be rs hi p i n t wo p art ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up s: “ wom eninGui ne a-Bi ss au ” an d

“ fam il y .” Da Sil vasays th atwhen sh e was a y ou ng gi rl h er ad op te d b ro th er an d hi s m il it ary fri en ds sex ua ll y ab us edan d rape d h er. As an in it ia l m at te r, th e BIA an d IJ fou ndDa Sil vato be , onth e who le , cred ib le . Butev enif t he sex ua l ab us e sh e su ffer edinGui ne a-Bi ss auam ou nt edto pe rs ecu ti on , th e Pet it io ne rs ne ve rth el es s h av e fai le d t o s ho w th atth e ab us e was in fli ct edon acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Fi rs t, as to th e Pet it io ne rs ’ arg um en t tha t Da Si lv a’s pe rs ecu ti on was b as ed on he r m em

be rs hi p i n t he pu rp orte d s oc ia l g ro up “ fam il y ,” th e arg um en t was no t 5ex haus te d b efo re the BIA, an d we t he refo re l ackjuri sd ic ti on to ad dr es s i t. Se e 8

U.S.C. § 1 25 2( d) (1 ) (p ro vi di ng th ata pe ti ti on er m us t h av e ex haus te d a ll av ai labl e adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s) ; se e a ls o Ama ya -Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (h ol di ng th atwe lac k ju ris di ct io n t o co ns id er cl ai m s tha t h av e n otbe enrai se d b efo re the BIA). Seco nd , reg ard in g t he Pet it io ne rs ’ arg um en t tha t Da Si lv a’s pe rs ecu ti on was be cau se of h er m em

be rs hi p i n the gro up “ wom eninGui ne a-Bi ss au ,” we ho ldth at th e BIA’s d eci si on inth is cas e is a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e p rin ci pl es set fo rth in Aco st a an d Ca st il lo -Ari as . The BI A det erm in edth at“wom en ” was to o br oa d t o c on st itut e a p art ic ul ar s oc ia l g ro up . W e ag ree t ha t s uc h agro up is to o nu m ero us an d b ro ad ly defi ne d t o b e co ns id ereda “ so ci al gro up ” und er the INA. Se e Ca st il lo -Ari as , 44 6 F .3dat 1 19 8. Th eref or e, th e Pet it io ne rs ha ve no t es tabl is he d p as t p ers ecu ti on inGui ne a-Bi ss auon acco un t o f a m em be rs hi p i n a sp eci fic gro up W e al so ag ree wi thth e BIA’s co nc lu si on th atth e Pet it io ne rs di d n otdi rect ly de m on st rat e a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on inGui ne a-Bi ss au . There is no ev id en ce tha t an y on e fro m Gui ne a-Bi ss auha s trie d t o fi ndDa Sil vaaft er s he le ft t he co un try. A lt ho ug h t he re i s ev id en ce tha t the m il it ary an d i ts m em be rs pe rio di cal ly abu se th ei r po si ti on of p owe r, th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e m il it ary 6ta rg et s an y

pa rti cu la r gr oup o f pe rs on s. Th eref or e, th e Pet it io ne rs ’ fearis no t ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e. B. Co nc ern in g Arg en ti na , th e Pet it io ne rs co nt en d t ha t Da Si lv a was pe rs ecu te d ba se d o n h er ra ce an d h er m em be rs hi p i n t he so ci al gro up “ wom eninin te rrac ia l m arri ag es .” The P et it io ne rs als o a rg ue th atth e BIA erredby notdi sc us si ng Dav id ’s su ffer in g. Las tl y , th e Pet it io ne rs reque stasylu m ba se d o n h um an it ari an co nc ern s, i nc lu di ng Da Sil va ’s HIV-po si ti ve st atus . The BIA d idno t err whe n i t d idno t d is cu ss ho w Davi d’s s uf feri ng affe ct ed hi s m ot he r’s qu al ifi cat io n fo r as y lu m . In g en eral , “pe rs ecu ti on , or t he fear th ereo f, m us t b e p ers on al ly endur edby the ap pl ic an t.” Se e Y u v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 56 8 F .3d 13 28 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m). W e are no t co m

pe ll edto rev ers e th e fi nd in gs of t he BIA th atth e Pet it io ne rs fai le d t o e st ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on if re tu rn edto Arg en ti na . Evenass um in g t ha t Da Si lv a’s tr oubl es oc cu rredon acco un t o f a pr ot ect edgro un d, the all eg edin ci de nt s—vi ewedcu m ul at iv el y —d o n otris e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . Da Sil vawas n otph y si cal ly harm edinth e m ajor it y of in st an ces . Andwhen sh e was ph y si cal ly inju red , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e co nc lu si on th atth e in

jury aros e fro m

a pe rs on al co nf

li ct —n otpe rs ecu ti on on 7acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Al th ou gh th e Pet it io ne rs ass ertth atraci sm an d xe no ph ob iaare ra m

pa ntinArge nt in a, th e 2 01 0 S ta te Depa rtment’s Hu m anRig ht s Rep ort d oe s n otin di cat e th atbl ackor d arksk in ne d i nd iv idua ls are t arg et edfor pe rs ecu ti on . Rath er, tha t re po rt s ho ws tha t Arg en ti ni anlaw p ro hi bi ts di sc riminat io n o n t he ba si s o f rac e o r ge nd er, an d t he co un try gen eral ly enfo rces th es e p ro hi bi ti on s. Se e Djo nd a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 51 4 F .3d11 68 , 11 75 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Add it io na ll y , alt ho ug h Da S il vais co nc ern edab ou t re tu rn in g t o Arg en ti na be cau se sh e is HIV po si ti ve , sh e h as no t p ro vi de d e vi de nc e th atsh e wil l b e d en ie d acce ss to all m ed ic at io ns or t ha t s he wil l b e p ers ecu te d b ecau se of h er d is eas e. Co ns id eri ng th atall in fere nc es fro m Pet it io ne rs ’ ev id en ce ar e drawninfav orof th e BIA, Djo nd

a , 51 4 F .3dat 1 17 5, Pe ti ti on ers ’ fearis no t o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. C. The Pet it io ne rs have fai le d t o e st ab li sh th ei r el ig ib il it y forasylu m

fro m Gui ne a-Bi ss auor Arg en ti na , so th ey ha ve , by ex te ns io n, fa il edto sat is fy th e m or e st rin ge ntburd enforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . See For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 8 n .4. Mo reo ve r, Ri card o a ndDavi d h adno de riv at iv e ri gh t t o wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al ba se d o n Da S il va ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . Se e Delg ado v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 48 7 F .3d85 5, 8 62 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). Add it io na ll y , bec au se th e Pet it io ne rs fai le d t o c ha ll en ge th e IJ ’s fin di ng th atth ey 8di d n otqu al ify for CAT re li ef, the Pet it io ne rs di d n otex haus t thi s ar gu m en t, an d

we th eref or e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er i t. Se e Amay a- Art un du aga , 46 3 F .3dat 12 50 Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we den y th e p et it io n i n p artan d d is m is s i n p art . PETI TI ON IS DENIE D IN PART AND DISMI SSED I N PART .

9