FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L25, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1514 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AN os. A 79- 508- 365 & A 79- 508- 366 ELIZABETH G OMEZ GAVIRIA, JOR GE ALBERTO SALD ARRIAGA PARRA, et al ., Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ P etition for Review of an O rder of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Apr il 25, 200 5)

Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Co lom bian c iti ze ns E liz ab eth G om ez G av ir ia , Jor ge A lbe rt o S al darr ia ga Parr a, and Carolina Saldar riaga G om ez ( collectively Gaviria) petition for review of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( BI A ’ s) or de r af fi rm ing the I m

m igr at ion Judg e’ s ( IJ ’ s) de nia l of

a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ion and Nationality

Ac t (IN A) and the United Nations Conventio n Against Torture an do th erCru el , I n h u m an e, an dDe g ra d i n g Tr ea t m en to r P u n i s h m en t(C AT) . We de ny the pe ti ti on . G av ir iam ai nta ins the I J e rr ed in de ny ing he r as y lum

and w ith hol din g of rem oval claim s because the Colom bian Revoluti onary

Ar m ed Force s (FA RC) im pu te d apo li ti cal op in io n t o h er b y st at in g s he co ll ab or at edwit h t he po li ce. G av ir iaa lso c la im s sh e w as pe rs ec ute d a ga ins t ona cc ount of he r ac tiv iti es in the Liber al Par

ty and the group sh e cr eated, the Association of Merc hants. T he IJ de te rm ine d th at , a lth oughG av ir ia ’ s te sti m ony w as c re dib le , she did

not e sta bli sh (1) her m em

bership in th e L iberal Party or the A ssociation of Mer chants was suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a pol iti ca l op ini on, and ( 2) the re w as no n ex us b etw ee n th e pr obl em s sh e fa ce d ona cc ount of the F A RC and h er

pol iti ca l op ini on. T hus, the IJ found she didnot m eet the definition of refugee under the INA , and denied h er as y lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l c la im s. T he BI Aa ff irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n wit ho utop in io n.3 I. D ISCU SSION When the BIAsumm arily aff irm s the IJ’ s decision withou t an opi nio n, the I J’ s de ci sio n be co m es the f ina l r em ova l or de r subj ec t t o re vie w . T he I J’ s f

ac tua l de te rm inatio ns are r ev ie w ed und er the subs tanti al e vid en ce te st, and w e m ust a ff irm the I J’ s de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the record c onsid ered a s a w hole. Se pulve da v . U

nit ed Sta tes A tto rne

y G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 226, 123 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (internal quotation s and citations om itted). Under this highlydefer ential standard of review , the I J’ s decision m ust be deferre d to as sup ported by subst antial ev id en ce, u nl es s t he ev id en ce co m pe ls a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se . Id . A. A sy lum An al ie n i s el ig ib le forasylu m if s he is a refu ge e. 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ). A

“ re fu ge e” inc lud es any

pe rs on who i s unw ill ing to re tur n to , and i s un ab le or unw ill ing to av ai l he rs el f of the pr ote ct ionof

, the c ountry

of he r na tio na lity

or w he re she la st h ab itu al ly

r es ide d, be ca

use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of persecution on account of rac e, religion, nationality , m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup, or

pol iti ca l op ini on. 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he bur de n of pr oo f is on th e al ie n t o e st ab li sh th atsh e is a refu ge e. A l N ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 257 F. 3d 1 262, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . A n a lie n m ay e sta bli sh e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum if4

she shows she has suffered past persecution or has a w ell-founded fear of future pe rs ecu ti on . 8 U.S.C. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b ). While the INAdoes not d efine persec ution , c ourts have generally held that pe rs ec uti on i s “puni shm en t or the inf lic tio n of harm f or pol iti ca l, r el igi ous, or other reasons that this cou ntry does not recognize as legitim ate. ” See , e. g. Ta m asM erce a v . R en o , 222 F. 3d 41 7, 424 (7th Cir. 2000). “ Perse cution encom passes m ore than threats to life or f reedom ; non-life threatening vio lence and phy sical abuse also fall within this category .” Id . Me re hara ssm en t i s no t pe rs ec uti on, and pe rs ec uti on r equir es “ m or e than af ewiso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or intim idation .” Se

pulve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1. An applicant is a re fugee on the basis of past persecution if the applicant has suf fe re d pe rs ec uti on i n he r co untry “ on a cc ount

of . . . pol iti ca l op ini on, ” an d th e ap pli cant “ is unable or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , or a va il . . . [ he r] se lf

of the pr ot ect io n o f, th atco un try owin g t o s uc h p ers ecu ti on .” 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (b )(1 ). A showing of past persecution create s a presum ption of a “ we ll-founded fear” subject to re buttal bythe IN S. 8 C. F. R. § 208 .13(b)(1). T he we ll-founded fear inquir y r equir es the a lie n to de m onstrate that hi s or he r fe ar of pe rs ec uti on “ is subjectively

genuine and ob

j ectively rea sonable.” Se

pulve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1. Furthe r, the a lie n m

ust e sta bli sh a c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e statut or y gr ound5

an d th e fe ar ed

pe rs ec uti on b y

pr es en tin g “ spe ci fi c, de ta ile d f ac ts s how ing agoo d reason to fear

that he or she will be sin gle d ou t fo r pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of [ the statutory ground]. ” Id

. ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . F ina lly , a ft er e sta bli shi ng a w el lfo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on, the a lie n m

ust de m onstrate that he or

she c annot av oi d t he pe rs ecu ti on by relo cat in g wi th in th e co un try. Id . An im puted po litical opin ion, even if it is incorrec tly attributed, can be a gr ou ndforth e wel l-f

ou nd edfearst an da rd . A l N ajj ar , 257 F. 3d at 128 9. I n order to prevail, the alien m

ust dem onstrate that “ the persecutor fa lsely attributed an opi nio n to [ he r] , and the n pe rs ec ute d [ he r] be ca use of that m ist ak enbe lie f ab out [her] views. ” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). I f the a lie n e sta bli she s th e pe rs ec uto r im

put ed apol iti ca l op ini on t o he r, the a lie n w oul d st ill be r equir ed to dem onstrate she has a we ll-founded fear of per secution because of that im puted op in io n. See id. First, Gaviria’ s claim

she wa s persecuted against because she wa s a m em ber of asoc ia l gr oup, he r A sso ci at ionof Me rc hants , f

ai ls b ec au se she did

not e xhaust her adm inistrative rem edies regarding this claim . A c ourt m ay reviewa final order of r em ova l on ly

if the a lie n ha s e xhaust ed

a ll adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s ava ila ble to he r as of r ig ht . See 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( d) (1 ); se e e. g. , Boz v. United States , 248 F . 3d 1299 , 1300–02 (11th Cir. 2001). Although Gaviria subm itted this claim to the IJ6

fo r rev ie w, sh e d idno t p res en t h er cl ai m to th e BIA fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. T he re fo re , be ca

use she ha s no t e xhaust ed he r adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, w e w ill not rev ie w th is cla im . Moreover, Gaviria’ s claim she wa s persecuted by

the FA RC beca

use of her m em be rs hip in the L ibe ra l P ar ty a lso f ai ls b ec au se suc h m em

be rs hip is not

e noug h to e sta bli sh p er se cu tio n ba se d onpol iti ca l op ini on, and the int er ior de co ratin g G av ir iadid

f or the P ar ty doe s no t c onst itu te apol iti ca l op ini on. I n a ddi tio n, the FA RC ne ve r ind ic at ed

the y w er e ca lli ng h er

and thr eate nin g he r be ca use of the se act iv it ie s, n ordi d Gav iri a te st ify sh e sp ok e o ut to th e p ub li c o n b eh al f of th e p art y . Ther efore, Gaviria failed to dem onstrate her activities for the P arty and her m em bership in th e Party

constitu ted a political opin ion, or, if the activities we re a pol iti ca l op ini on, to es ta

bli sh a ne xus be tw ee n su chopi nio n and the thr eats b y the FARC. See A l N

ajj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. Additionally , G aviria’ s claim the FA RC im

puted a poli tical opinio n to her al so f ai ls. S he m ai nta ins the F A RC tol d he r the y w oul d ki ll he r be ca

use she co lla bor at ed w iththe pol ic e. A lth oughG av ir ia ’ s te sti m ony de m onstrate s sh e w en t to the pol ic e of

fi ce rs ’ hom es and the ir

hos pit al to do s om e int er ior de co ratin g w ork, and s he c re at ed

he r A sso ci at ionof

Me rc hants to pr ote ct

the ne ighbor

hood m er ch an ts f

ro m the F A RC , the se a ct ivi tie s do not c onst itu te apol iti ca l op ini on,7

im pu te d o r ot he rwis e. See A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 89. Mo re ove r, G av ir ia adm itted she and her husb and owned their business es, and stated it was only after he r husb an d st ar

te d m ak ing alot

of m one y that the F A RC c ont ac te d hi m . B oththe 2001 and the 200 2 S ta te D ep ar tm en t C ountry

Re ports f

or Co lom bia ind ic at e the FA RC de m an ds b usi ne ss o w ne rs w ho h av e a lot of m one y pay the m ta xe s or r isk being ki dnaped. T hus, it appears as though th e FA RC hara ssed her and her husb and because neither of them would pay

the FA RC the taxes the FA RC dem anded they

pay . Ther efore, Gaviria has failed to establish the actions taken ag ai nst he r by the F A RC w er e on a cc ount of one of the f ive statut or

y gr ound s, and subs tanti al e vid en ce e xis ts t o su ppor t the I J’ s c onc lus ionG av ir iadid not pr ove th atsh e m etth e d efi ni ti on of “ refu ge e” u nd er t he INA. See 8 U. S. C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A). B. W ith holdin g of

R em ov al Inaw ith hol din g of

r em ova l c la im , an a lie n sh al l no t be r em ove d to a co untry if he r lif e or f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d ona cc ount of r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a particular social group, or political opin ion. 8 U. S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ). T he a lie n m ust sho wit is “ m or e lik el y

than no t tha t sh e w ill be persecuted or tortured upon bein g returned to her country .” Se pulve da , 401 F . 3d at 123 2. T he w ith hol din g of r em ova l st an dard

is m or e str ing en t than th e “ w el l-8

fo unde d f ear” standard

f or a sy lum ; thus, if

an a ppl ic an t i s un ab le to m ee t the

“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” sta ndard f or a sy lum , she ge ne ra lly

is una ble to qua lif

y f or wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . I d. at 1 23 2– 33 . Be ca use G av ir iac annot

pr ev ai l onhe r as y lum

c la im , she is al so unable to m eetth e st ric te r st an da rd s o f he r INA wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im . See id. C. Co nv en tio n A gai nst T orture An alien is eligibl e for w ithho lding of rem oval und er the C AT if she can es ta bli sh “ it is m or e lik el y

than no t tha t he or

she w oul d be tor

tur ed if r em ove d to the propos ed country

of rem oval.” 8 C. F. R. § 208 .16(c) (2). T he CA T def ines

“ torture” as any a ct by w hic h se ve re pa in o r suf fe ri ng, w he the r phy sic al or m en ta l, is i nte nti ona lly

inf lic te d onape rs on f

or suc h purp ose s a s ob ta ini ng fr om him or he r or athi rd pe rs on i nf

orm at ionor

a c onf es sio n, puni shing him

or her f or an act he or she or a third person has co m m itt ed or is sus pe ct ed

of havin g c om

m itt ed , or int im idatin g or co er ci ng h im

or he r or athi rd pe rs on, or

f or any r ea son ba se d on dis cr im inatio n of

any kin d, w he n su chpa in o r suf fe ri ng i s in fl ic te d by or a t the ins tig at ionof

or w iththe c onse nt o r ac qui es ce nc e of apub lic of fic ia l o r ot he r pe rs on act in g i n a n o ffi ci al cap aci ty. Id. § 208 .18(a) (1). T he re is no e vid en ce that i t i s m or e lik el y than no t tha t G av ir iaw oul d be tortur ed if r em ove d to Co lom

bia . T hus, he r CA T c la im a lso f ai ls.9 III. C ONC LUS ION T he I J di d no t e rr

in de ny ing G av ir ia ’ s a sy lum , w ith hol din g of r em ova l and CAT cla im s. PE TITION DEN IED .