### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 1 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1406 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 74- 398- 746 EARLYS LENIN GU IDO-RUIZ, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 18, 200 5) Be fo re H U L L , W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: E ar ly s L en in Guid o- Ru iz , anativ e of N ic ar ag ua , pe tit ion s th is C ourt f or reviewof the final order of the Board of I m m igration Appeals (BIA ), which2

affir m ed the order of r em oval by the Im m igration Ju dge (IJ). T he transitional ru le s of the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ionRe fo rm

and I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity

A ct of 19 96 , Pub . L. No. 10 4- 20 8, 1 10 Sta t. 3 00 9 (1 99 6) , go ve rn hi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. Se e A l N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 127 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . W e de ny the pe tit ion . I. S TAN DA RD OF RE VIEW Beca use the BIAadopted the decisio n of the IJ w ithou t opin ion, we review th e a n al ysi s o f t h e I J as i f i twe re th e a n al ysi s o f t h e B IA . S ee i d . a t1 2 8 4 . We re vie wf ac tua l de te rm inatio ns, inc lud ing the e xis te nc e of pa st p er se cu tio n and a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on , un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, an d we

“ m ust a ff irm the . . . de ci sio n if

it is ‘ supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , and pr obativ e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ’ ” I d. 257 3d at 12 83- 84 (c itatio n om itt ed ). U nde r thi s hi ghl y de fe re nti al standard , w e m ust de fe r to the de ci sio n . . . unl es s th e ev ide nc e “ co m pe ls” ar ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er to fi nd ot he rwis e. INS v . Elia s- Zacar ia s, 5 02 U.S. 47 8, 4 81 n.1 , 11 2 S . Ct. 8 12 , 81 5 n .1 (1992). II. D ISCU SSION Guido-Ruiz m akes three argum ents on app eal. H e first argues that the IJ er re d inde ny ing a sy lum

and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l be ca

use G uid o- Ru iz3

pr es en te d e vid en ce of

pa st p er se cu tio n and the c hange of c ondi tio ns i n N ic ar ag ua doe s no t r eb ut this e vid en ce . G uid o- Ru iz ne xt arg ue s th at the I J de nie d hi m

due process. F inally , Guido -Ruiz ar gues that the IJ sho uld have stay ed the rem oval proceedings pend ing a determ ination of w hether G uido -Ruiz w as entitled to relief un de r th e Nic arag ua n Ad jus tm en t an d C en tra l Am eri can Rel ie f Act(NACARA). W e ad dr es s e ac h arg um en t i n turn .

A . A sy lum and

W ith holdin g of

R em ov al A n a lie n who arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S tate s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . IN A § 208 (a)( 1), 8 U .S .C. § 1158 (a) (1). T he Attorney Ge neral has di sc ret io n t o g ran t as y lu m if t he ali en m eet s t he st atut ory de fin it io n o f a “ refu ge e.” IN A § 208(b)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(b)(1). T he asy lum applicant carr ies the burden of pr ovi ng s tatut or

y “ re fu ge e” status . A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84. I f the appl ic an t m ee ts this bur de n, the n th e A G m ay e xe rc ise his dis cr et ionto gr an t the appl ic an t as y lu m . Id. T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity , an a lie n m

ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le ev ide nc e, e sta

bli sh e ith er

( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of his pol iti ca l op ini on or oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor or ( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d” f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on in a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, natio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or political opi nion . 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(a), (b); A l Na jj ar, 257 F.3d at 1287. If an4

al ie n of fe rs c re dib le te sti m ony

of pa st p er se cu tio n inapr ote ct ed gr ound , he is pr es um edto ha ve a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , see 8 C.F .R. § 208. 13( b) (1 ); D -M uhum ed v. U nit ed S tate s A tto rn ey

G en . , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 818 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) , but

“ anim m igr at ionj udge . . . sha ll de ny the a sy lum

appl ic at ion of an alien found to be a refugee on the basis of past persecution if . . . [t] here has been a fundam ental change in circum stances such that the appli cant no long er has a w ell-founded fear of persecution in the appli cant’ s country of nationality .” 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 )(i ). Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the f ind ing of the I J th at

G uid o- Ru iz did

not ha ve a well -fo un de d fe ar t ha t h is po li ti cal op in io n wi ll cau se fut ur e p ers ecu ti on . G uid o- Ru iz suf

fe re d r el at ive ly

m ino r hara ssm en t. A lth oughthe I J f ound that hi s

“ fathe r w as sub

j ec te d to w ha t a

ppe ar s to be ave ry

hars h pe ri od o f de te nti on f or fo ur m onths” be ca

use of his f athe r’ s “ expr es sio n of

dis ple as ur e w iththe Sandi nis tagov er

nm en t, ” G uid o- Ru iz r em ai ne d inN ic ar ag uaf or e igh t or nin e y ears a ft er

the S an din ist a re vol uti on. G uid o- Ru iz w as ne ve r ar re ste d and d id n ot suffer any harm during th is period of tim e. A lthou gh Guido-Ruiz testified that m em bers of the Sandin ista y outh com m ittee w ouldsom etim es beat him , the r ecord does not contain any

evidence that Guido-Ruiz w as ever phy sically injure d be cau se hi s t es ti m on y

was n otsp eci fic as t o t he na tu re o r ex te ntof t he be at in gs .5

A ddi tio na lly , m em

be rs of G uid o- Ru iz ’ s f

am ily c ont inu e to l ive in N ic ar ag ua w ith out pe rs ec uti on f

ro m the S an din ist as . Si nc e G uid o- Ru iz ’ s de part ur e fr om N ic ar ag ua , ade m oc ratic gov er nm en t ha s be enf

irm ly e sta bli she d. T he Co untry

Re port no te d e xte nsi ve c hange s in N i c ar a g u as i n c e 1 9 9 0 . Ni c ar a g u ai s ac o n s t i tu t i o n a l d e mo c r a c y wi th ap o p u l ar l yel ec te d pr es ide nt, vic e pr es ide nt, and l eg isl at ur e. G uid o- Ru iz , the re fo re , f ai le d to showthat he pos se sse d a“ w el l- fo unde d f ear” of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of any pr ote ct ed gr ound . G uid o- Ru iz a lso f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t he w as e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of rem oval und er the INA , which allows for w ithho lding of rem oval if an alien can showthat hi s li fe or

f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d ona cc ount of r ac e, r el igi on, na ti on al it y , 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. Se e INA § 24 1( b) (3 )( A ); 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 )( A ). A n a lie n se ek ing w ith hol din g of re m ova l m

ust e sta bli sh tha t he w oul d “ m or e lik el y than no t” be pe rs ec ute d on account of one of the protected grounds ” if he w ere to return to the country . See IN S v. Stevic, 467 U.S . 407, 429-30, 104 S. Ct. 2489 , 2501 (1984). T his stand ard is a m ore stringent than th e standard for a sy lum . See Mazar iegos v. U. S. Attorney Gen ., 24 1 F .3d13 20 , 13 24 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).6

If “ anappl ic an t i s un ab le to m ee t the ‘ w el l- fo unde d f ear’ standard

f or as y lum , he is ge ne ra lly

pr ec lud ed

f ro m qua lif y ing f or e ith er a sy lum or w ith hol din g of r em ova l. ” A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 92- 93 ( int er na l c itatio ns o m itt ed ). B ec au se Guido-Ruiz failed to m eet the lowe r standard of eligibilityfor asy lum , substantial ev ide nc e supp orts the de nia l by the BI Aof

w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. W e co nc lud e that Guid o- Ru iz f

ai le d to m ee t hi s burd ento showthat i t w as m or e lik el y than no t th athi s l ife or f

reed om wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f an y pro te ct edgro un d. Fi na lly , G uid o- Ru iz f

ai le d to de m onstrate that he w as e lig ibl e fo r withholdi ng of rem oval und er the United Nations Conv ention Against Torture (C A T ). T o e sta

bli sh w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the CA T , an a ppl ic an t m

ust es ta bli sh tha t i t i s “ m or e lik el y than no t” he w ill be tor

tur ed in the c ountry

of rem oval. 8 C. F. R. § 208 .16(c) (2). Guido-Ruiz did notprove that he wa s ever tortured, m uch less that he “ m ore lik el y than no t” w oul d be tor

tur ed upo n hi s r et

ur n to N ic ar ag ua . G uid o- Ru iz a lso did not pr es en t any

e vid en ce that the a lle ge d harm he suf fe re d w as “ inf

lic te d at the in st ig at io n o f orwit h t he co ns en t o r acq ui es cen ce o f a p ub li c o ffi ci al .” 8 C.F .R. § 20 8.1 8( a)(1 ). Gui do -Ru iz , th eref or e, fai le d t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for CAT rel ie f.7 B . D ue Proc es s Guido-Ruiz argues that the IJ denied him due process when the IJ a sked Gu i d o -Ru i z’s fa th ert o ex p l ai nwh y Gu i d o -Ru i z’s m i d d l e n ame wa s Le n i n . We re vie wadue pr oc es s c la im de nov o. S ee A la

bam a Po w er

Co . v. F CC , 311 F . 3d 1357 , 1367 (11th Cir. 2002). “ To establish due process viol ations in rem oval pr oc ee din gs, a lie ns m

ust sho wthat the y

w er e de pr ive d of

li be rty w ith out due process of law , and that th e asserte d errors c aused them subst antial prej udice.” L ony em v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 352 F . 3d 1 338, 134 1- 42 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( ci tatio n om itted). In response to testim ony

by Guido-Ruiz’ s father, Maxim o, that he w as t o t a l l y u n aw ar e o f

th e n a tu r e o f

th e S an d i n i s t ag o v e rn me n t , th e I J a s k e dM a x i mo ab out his c hoi ce of

the m idd le nam e L en in f or his son . Maxim o st at ed

that he j ust liked the nam e, and he did no t see any significance in the nam e. T his respons e spok e to Maxim o’ s credibility because Guido -Ruiz w as born three m onth s after the S an din ist as , aMarx ist or ganiz at ion , c am e to p ow er . Mo re ove r, G uid o- Ru iz ha s no t de m onstrate d th at thi s is olate d, sho rt

li ne of que sti oni ng i nte rf

er ed w ithhis ab ili ty to pr es en t hi s c as e. A cc or din gly , G uid o- Ru iz ha s no t e sta bli she d th at

the que sti oni ng b y

the I J vi olate d du e pr oc es s.8 C. NACARA G uid o- Ru iz arg ue s th at

the I J sh oul d have stay ed the r em ova l pr oc ee din gs p en d i n g a d et erm i n at i o no f w h et h erh e w as en t i t l edt o re l i ef u n d erNAC ARA. We re vie wle ga l de te rm inatio ns o f the BI Aor I J de nov o. S ee D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 817. A n alien is eligibl e to apply for adj ustm ent of status und er the N ACA RA if he (1) is a national of Nicar agua or Cuba, and (2) has been present in the United St at es f or ac ont inu ing pe ri od b eg inn ing no l at er than D ec em

be r 1, 199 5, and ending no earlier than the date the adjustm ent application is granted. See N A CA RA§§ 2 02( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ) Ch ildre n of N ic ar ag uan a lie ns c anobt ai n pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus un de r th e NACARA if th ey m eetcert ai n re qu ire m en ts . See NA CAR

A § 202(d). A child is “ an unm arrie d person un der tw enty -one y ears of ag e who is . . . a ch il d b orn i n wed lo ck .” INA § 1 01 (b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (b)(1)( A) . G uid o- Ru iz is not

e lig ibl e to a

ppl y f or r el ie f unde r the N A CA RAon h is ow n be ca use he e nte re d th e co untry in O ct obe r 1996 . H e, the re fo re , c anobt ai n re lie f onl y

a s abe ne fi ci ar

y of his m oth er ’ s a

ppl ic at ion . B ec au se G uid o- Ru iz re ac he d th e ag e of

21 b ef or e his m oth er ’ s a

ppl ic at ionw as pr oc es se d, he doe s no t qu al ify as a “ ch il d” un de r th e NACARA. Alt ho ug h Gu id o- Ru iz arg ue s t ha t we shou ld c onsi de r oth er

im m igr at ionpr ovi sio ns tha t c onsi de r the a ge of the9

ap pli cant at the ti m e the pe tit ionw as f ile d, non e of

tho se pr ovi sio ns am en d or expand the age provis ion of the NA CAR A. T he IJ did not err in concludin g that Gui do -Ru iz was n oteli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t u nd er t he NACARA. III. C ONC LUS ION Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng , we den y Gui do -Ru iz ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.