FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 26 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11407 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 95- 227- 661 A 95- 227- 716 J A V I E R J E S U S B A R R I O S , A S T R I D D E M A R I A L I N D A D O , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 26, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Ja vi erJe sus B arri os and h i s w i fe , A stri d d e M ar i a L i nd ado, w ho ar e nat i ves a nd c i t i z e ns of

C ol om bi a , s e e k r e vi e w of the f i na l or de r o f the B oa r d ofBe causewe f ind that Petiti oners have not established a casefor a sylum under the I NA, 1 we do not consider whe ther they satisfied the higher standa rd for withholding of removal. See A l Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1292-93 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2 Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) , w hi ch af firm ed the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) order denyi ng thei r app l i ca t i on for a sy l um . O n app ea l , P et i t i on er s a rgue the IJ 1
e rr e d by de ny i ng a s y l um a ft er fi n d i ng tha tB a rr i os , the l e a d pe t i t i one r , ha d not
e s t abl i s hed p astpe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l
- f ounde d f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on by the C o lu m b ia n A r m e d F o r c e s ( “F A R C ” ) b a s e d o n h i s m e m b e r s h ip in th e L ib e r a l P a r ty ( “L P ” ) a n d h is p o s itio n a s th e C a m p a ig n D ir e c to rf o ra n L P c a n d i d a t e ru n n in g in th e Oc t o b e r2 0 0 0 l o c a l e l e c t i o n s i n B a rr a n q u i l l a , C o l o m b i a . Af t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w, we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. “W e r e v ie w o n ly th e [ B I A ’s ] d e c is io n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11t h C i r. 2001)
. H e r e , the B I A a dopt e d the I J ’ s opi n i o n , an d a l s o m a de a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs
w i th r e s pe c tt o B a rr i os ’ s abi l i ty t o r e l oc a t e i n C o l o m b i a. “ T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A’ s d e c i s i o n wa s b a s e d o n a l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , [ o u r ] r e v i e w i s d e n o v o . ” DM u h um ed v. U . S
. A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F
. 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he B IA ’s

“ fi n d i n g s o f factare rev i ew ed u n d er th e s u b s ta n ti al ev i d en ce t est , ” an d w e m u st
a f f i r m the B I A ’ s de c i s i on “ i f i ti s su p p or t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd p ro b ativ e e v id en ce o n th e r ec o rd co n sid er ed as a w h o le.” A n ti p o v a v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n ., 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . U n d e rth is h ig h ly3

deferen t i a l s t a nda r d of r e vi e w , a de ni a l of

a s y l um m a y be r e ve r s e d onl y i f the evi dence w ou l d com pel a r ea sonabl e f ac t fi nd ert o con cl ud e th at the r equi si t e f ea r of pers ec ut i on exi st s. IN S v. E l i as -Z ac ar i as , 50 2 U
. S
. 47 8, 48 1 n
. 1 (19 92 ). A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nt i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a y appl y f or as yl um . S ee IN A § 2 08 (a )( 1), 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 15 8(a) (1). T he A tt o rn ey G en er al has d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f

a “r e f u g e e .” S e e I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is a n y p e r s o n w h o is
u n w il li n g to re tu rn to h is h o m e c o u n try o r to a v a il h im s e lf o f th at co u n try’s pr ot e c t i on “ be c a us e o f pe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l
- f ounde d f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof race, re l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A )
. T he as y l um app l i c a ntc a rr i e s the bu r de n o f pr ov i ng s t a tut ory “ r e f ug ee ”
s ta tu s . S e e A l N a

j j a r v . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( a )
. T he appl i c a nts a t i s f i e s t h i s b u rde n by s how i ng, w i th s pe c i f i c a nd
c r e di bl e e vi de nc e : ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof a s t a tut or i l y l i s t ed f

a c t or , or (2) a“ w el l -f

ou nd ed fe ar ” thathi s or herst atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w i l l cause f uture p ersecu t i o n . A l N ajj ar, 2 5 7 F . 3 d at1 2 8 7 ; 8 C
. F . R . § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (a), (b ). “ T o estab l i sh
as yl um base d o n p as tpers ec ut i on , the appl i ca ntm ustprov e ( 1) that[ ] he w as p ersecu t ed , an d (2 ) th at th e p ersecu t i o n w as o n acco u n t o f a p ro t ect ed g r o u n d .” S i l va v. U . S
. A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F
. 3d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 6 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed).4

“ T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um base d o n a w ell-fo u nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n , th e ap p lic a n t m u s t p r o v e ( 1 ) a ‘s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u i n e a n d o b je c tiv e ly
r e a s onabl e ’ f

e a rof persecu t i o n, tha ti s ( 2) on a c c ountof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” I d. (c i t at i on s om it ted ). A ss um i ng the appl i ca nti s abl e t o est abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar of pe r s e c u t i o n , h e mu s t th e n s h o w th a t th e p e r s e c u t i o n c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d by
r e l oc a t i ng i n the s ubj e c tc ountry . S e e S e pul ve da v. U . S
. A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F
. 3d 1226, 12 31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ); 8 C
. F . R . § 2 08
. 13 (b)( 2)(i i ). T he s t a tut e s gove rni n g a s y l um pr ot e c tnotonl y a ga i ns tpe r s e c ut i on by go ve rnme ntf

or c e s , bu ta l s o a ga i ns tpe r s e c ut i on by no n- go ve rnme nt a l gr ou ps t hat th e g o v er n m en t ca n n o t co n tro l, su ch as th e F A R C
. S ee S an ch ez v . U .S . A tt ’y G en. , 39 2 F
. 3d 43 4, 43 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). H ow ever , “ [p] er se cut i on on ac coun t o f .

. . pol i t i c a l opi ni on . . . i s pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof the v i ct i m ’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, notthe pe r s e c ut or ’ s. ” Id
. at437- 38 ( quot i ng E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U
. S
. a t482 (e m p h as is i n o ri gi nal ))
. “ [P ] er se cut i on i s a n ext re m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than
a few i so l a t e d i nc i de nt s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on [
. ] ” S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d at12 31 (i nt ernal q u o tati o n s a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed). T here m ustbe “ spec i fi c, de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng a good r e a so n t o f e a rtha t[ the pe t i t i one r ] w i l l be s i ngl e d out f orpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount o f [h i s p ol i t i c a l ] opi ni on. ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F
. 3d a t1287. M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e h e ld th a t “ e v i d e n c e th a t e ith e ris c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f p r iv a te
v i o l e n c e o rth e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s f a i l u r e t o c o o p e r a t e wi th g u e r i l l a s , o r t h a tm e r e l y s h o ws5

that a pers on has been the vi ct i m of cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty, do es no t const i tute e v i dence
o f p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n a s ta tu to r ily p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d .” R u iz v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 440 F
. 3d 1247 1257- 58 ( 11th C i r . 2006); S epul ve da , 401 F
. 3d a t1231 ( hol di ng that“ a f

ew is ol at ed i nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on ” w er e in s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n )
. H er e, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s th e IJ ’ s a nd B IA ’ s dec i si on s that P et i t i o n ers fai l ed t o m eetth ei r b u rd en o f p ro o f fo r asyl u m b ased o n ei th er p ast p er se cu ti o n o r a w ell-fo u n d ed fe aro f f u tu re p er s e c u ti o n . T h e I J f o u n d B ar rio s’s t e s t i m ony c r e di bl e , but c onc l ude d tha t w ha t B a rr i os de s c r i be d di d not r i se t o the le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n : T h e resp o n d en t a ck n o w l ed g ed th ath e w as stressed -o u tb y th e th reat s, the be i ng f

ol l ow e d by a c a r , a nd t he n be i ng appr oa c he d by i nd i vi du al s. B uthe w as no tph ys i ca l l y harm ed there i n any w ay , no r .

. . w as th er e t es t i m on y pre se nt ed thatre spon dentsuff er ed any s ever e r e s tr i c t i ons on l i f

e orl i be r ty , e ve n though he t e s t i f i e d tha t[ dur i ng] the l a s ttw o m onths a nd a ha l f i n C ol om bi a , he ke pta l ow pr of i l e . B ut the r e w a s nothi ng t o i ndi c a t e tha the w a s pr e c l ude d f r om e a rni ng a l i v el i hood. I nde e d, the t e s t i m ony i s t o the c ontr a ry , s i nc e he ac kn ow l e dg e [ d] tha the w a s abl e t o c on t i nu e i n h i s c on s truc t i on f i rm un t i l the t i m e he l ef

t C ol om bi a. N or i s there any evi dence t hat re spon denthas s uffe re d any se vere psyc ho l og i ca l traum a. A l th o u g h th e r e i s s o me e v i d e n c e th a t Ba rr i o s w a s th e t a r g e t o f h a r a s s me nta nd i nt i m i da t i on, s uc h e vi de nc e doe s n o t c om pe l a f i ndi ng of

pe r s e c ut i on unde rthe f i r s t p ro n g of

the pe t i t i one r ’ s bur de n t o s how pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. C f
. S a nc he z , 392 F. 3 d a t4 3 8 ( f

i n d i n g th a tp e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m, b a s e d o n h a r a s s me ntb y FA RC6

g u e r illa s a n d p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w ith th e g u e rr illa s o rto j o i n th e ir forc es , di d n otes t abl i sh pers ec ut i on for p u rp oses of w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der I N A )
. U n d e r o u r p r e c e d e n t , th e i n c i d e n t s Ba rr i o s h a s i d e n t i f i e d i n s u p p or tof
a s y l um s i m pl y do notr i s e t o t h e l ev e l of , orc om pe l a f

i ndi ng of

, pe r s e c ut i on f

or purpos e s of

e s t abl i s hi ng “ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus ba s e d on pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. C f. S i l va , 448 F . 3d a t1237- 38; S e pul ve da , 401 F
. 3d a t1231. I n s hor t , the r e c or d, v i ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on s, do es no tcom pel the concl usi on that B arri o s est ab l i sh ed p ersecu t i o n -- th e fi rstp ro n g o f h i s b u rd en t o est ab l i sh “ p ast pe r s e c ut i on” - - a nd thus he w a s note nt i t l e d t o a s y l um ba s e d on pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. A s B a rr i os ha s note s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e cu t i on, he i s note nt i t l e d t o a pres um pt i on o f a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . S ub st ant i al evi dence
s uppor t s the I J ’ s c onc l us i on tha tB a rr i os doe s notha ve a w e l l
- f ounde d f

e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c a us e ( 1) he w as n ev e rphy s i c a l l y ha r m e d i n C ol om bi a ; ( 2) he
r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia a f te r h e s p e n t a s h o r t tim e in P a n a m a , d u r in g w h ic h h e d id
n o t ap p ly f

o ra s y lu m th e r e ; ( 3 ) h e w a s n o t h a r m e d w h e n h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia
a nd w a s abl e t o a voi d f urthe r ha r a s s m e nt by ke e pi ng a l ow pr ofi l e; an d ( 4) D r. R ey nald o B en it o P er ez S anchez, the ca nd i dat e f or w ho m B arri os w as c a m p a ig n in g in th e O c to b e r2 0 0 0 lo c a l e le c tio n s , c o n tin u e s to r e s id e s a f e ly inAs an additi on al ba sis fo r de nyinga sylum , th eB IA f ound thePe tition e rsc ould s a fe ly 2 re loc atein C olo mbi a . B e c a us ePe tition e rsfaile d tome e t th e ir initial bu

rde n toe sta

bli shpa st perse cution, the burden never shifted to the g overnment to show internal reloc ation was re asonable
. Cf. Arboleda

v. U.S. Atty . Gen’ l, 434 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (where g overnment conce ded, and theBIA pre sumed, past per secution, the burden was on the g overnment to show that internal re location was reasonable; after examining the 1999 a nd 2000 Country

Reports for Colombi a, holdingthat the FARC operates on a country-wide ba sis in C olomb i a, and that the g overnment h ad failed to show that relocation was a viableoption). Here , unlike in Arboleda , Petitioners failed to ca

rry their burden to show past perse cution.

7 C o lo m b i a . S i m p ly p u t, th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t B a rr io s , s ix

2 ye ar s a ft erthe O ct ob er20 00 el ec t i on s f or w hi ch he camp ai gn ed , w o ul d b e at ar get
o f th e F A R C resi d i n g ei th er i n B arran q u i l l a, o r e ls e w h ere i n C o l o m b i a. B ecau se B arri os di d n otpres ent“ spec i fi c, detail ed fa ct s s ho w i ng a goo d rea son t o fea r that he
. . . w i l l be s i ngl e d ou t f orpe r s e c ut i on, ” S e pul ve da , 401 F
. 3d a t1231 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) , w e a r e notc om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude tha th e h as e s t abl i s he d a c a s e f or a s y l u m b a s e d o n a w e l l
- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n b y th e FA RC. P e t i t i one r s ha ve f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe rec or d c om pe l s a f i ndi ng tha tthe F A R C p e r s e c u te d th e m b a s e d o n p o litic a l o p in io n , o rth a t th e y h a v e a w e llf ounde d f

e a r o f futur e pe r s e c ut i on by the F A R C
. A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.