FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 27 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -9 20 -6 59 GERMAN CECERES BEC ERRA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 29 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, EDMONDSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Germ anCece res Bece rra p et it io ns th is co urt fo r rev ie w of theor de r of

th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) , affi rm in g t he Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al pu rs ua ntto th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), an d re li ef und er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Tre atm en t orPuni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 , 8 C.F.R . § 2 08 .16 (c). In hi s pe ti ti on , Bece rra c ha ll en ge s t he BIA’s de te rm in at io n t ha t h e fai le d t o e st ab li sh a ne xu s b etweenth e h arm

he su ffer edinCo lo m

bi a an d h is actua l o r im

pu te d po li ti cal op in io n fo r pu rp os es of h is eli gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Bec erraals o a rg ue s t ha t the IJ e rredinit s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng . Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci 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 dec is io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ Whe n a n app el lantfai ls to off er ar gu m en t o n anis su e, th atis su e is ab an do ne d.” Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att

y. Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mo reo ve r, pa ss in g re fere nc es to is su es are i ns uf fic ie nt to rai se a cl ai m

forap pe al . Gree nb ri ar

, Ltd. v. Cit

y o f Alab as te r, 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). As a t hr es ho ldm at te r, Bece rra h as ab an do ne d h is asylu m an d C AT clai m s by no t ra is in g t ho se is su es inhi s b rie f. Se e S ep ul ved a, 40 1 F .3dat 1 22 8 n .2. Lik ewis e, Bec erra ’s con te nt io n t ha t the IJ e rredinfin di ng hi m no t cr ed ib le is 2m is pl acedbe cau se th e BIA d idno t re ly on t ha t g ro un d i n m ak in g i ts rul in g.

Fu rth erm or e, Bec erra ’s ass ert io n t ha t the IJ f ai le d t o fa ct or

th e 2 00 6 U.S. Dep artm en t o f St at e Co un try Repo rt o n Hu m anRig ht s Pr act ic es forCo lo m bi a in to it s d eci si on was n otrai se d b efo re the BIA, an d, the refo re, i s n otpro pe rly ex haus te d. Se e Amay a-

Artun du ag a v . U.S. Att

y. Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atth is co urt l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r cl ai m s n otrai se d be fo re the BIA). W e rev ie w leg al de te rm in at io ns of t he BIA de no vo , andrev ie w

“ adm in is tra ti ve factfin di ng s u nd er the hi gh ly defer en ti al subs tant ia l ev id en ce te st .” Rive ra v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 48 7 F .3d81 5, 8 20 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e m us t af firm th e d eci si on of t he BIA if itis

“ supp orte d b y

reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rd co ns id eredas awho le .” Si lv a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 8 F .3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Thu s, we d o n oten ga ge ina de no vo rev ie w of t he fact s as fou ndby the IJ, an d we m ay no t “ rewei gh th e ev id en ce fr om sc rat ch .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Und er the subs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e te st , we vi ew th e rec or d “ inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nd dr aw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F.3 d 1 02 2, 1 02 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ( en ba nc ). To rev ers e a fac tu al fin di ng by the 3BIA, we m

us t fi ndth at“ th e rec or d c om pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f actth atth e reco rdm ay

supp ort a c on tra ry

co nc lu si on is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of t he adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Id. To qua li fy

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al , an a li enm us t s at is fy

m or e strin ge nt st an da rd s t ha n t ho se forasylum eli gi bi li ty, so “ anali enun ab le to pro ve a ‘w el lfo un de d fe ar’ of p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d, as requi redforasylu m rel ie f, ne ces sa ril y

fai ls to de m on st rat e a ‘clear pr ob ab il ity of p ers ecu ti on ,’ th e ‘stan da rdap pl ic ab le to a cl ai m for withh ol di ng of r em ov al .’ ” Rod ri gu ezMoral es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 48 8 F .3d88 4, 8 91 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). To b e g ran te d wi th ho ld in g of rem ov al un de r th e INA, anali en“ m us t s ho w th athi s l ife or f reed om wou ldbe th reat en edonacco un t o f hi s ra ce, 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.” Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen ., 39 2 F .3d43 4, 4 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The ap pl ic an t m us t es tabl is h a su ffi ci en t n ex us be twee n h is po li ti cal op in io n o r ot he r pr ot ect edgro un d a ndhi s al le ge d p ers ecu ti on . Rod ri gu ezMor al es , 48 8 F .3dat 8 90 . “ It i s n oten ou ghto sh ow tha t [t he ali en ] was or wi ll be pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu reddu e to [th e al ie n’s] refu sa l t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he gu erri ll as .” Sa nc he z, 39 2 F .3dat 4 38 . Pers ecu ti on “ on acco un t o f” a p ol it ic al op in io n m ean s p ers ecu ti onbe cau se of th e “ vi ct im’s po li ti cal op in io n, n otth e p ers ecu to r’s.” I.N.S. v. Elia s- Za ca ri as , 450 2 U.S. 4 78 , 48 2, 1 12 S. Ct. 8 12 , 81 6 (1 99 2) . The fac t tha t the pe rs ecu to r is

m ot iv at edby the pe rs ecu to r’s po li ti cal be li ef i s “ irr el ev an t” to th e is su e o f whe th er th e v ic ti m

was p ers ecu te d b ecau se of t he vi ct im ’s ownbe li ef. Rod ri gu ez Mor al es , 48 8 F .3dat 8 90 . “ An as y lu m ap pl ic an t m ay

pre va il on a th eo ry

of ‘im pu te d po li ti cal op in io n’ if h e sh ows th atth e p ers ecu to r fal se ly attr ib ut edanop in io n t o hi m , andth enpe rs ecu te d h im , bec au se of t ha t m is ta ke n b el ie f ab ou t h is vi ews .” Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . Whe n se ek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an “ al ie n b ears th e b ur de n o f de m on strat in g t ha t he m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on hi s re turnto th e co un try in que st io n.” Sa nc he z , 39 2 F .3dat 4 37 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . The reco rdhe re d oe s n otco m pe l a f in di ng th atBece rra e st ab li sh eda ne xu s be twee n h is ex pe rie nc es inCo lo m bi a an d h is actua l o r im

pu te d p ol it ic al op in io n. The re i s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort the BIA’s co nc lu si on th at Bec errawas n otpe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n, b utrathe r be cau se of cri m in al act iv it y

or h is workas acle rk . Accor di ng ly, we de ny the pe ti ti on for rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

5