FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 8, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 11782 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 264- 702 & A 95- 264- 705 M A R I A D E L A C R U Z P I N E D O L E A L , E L I A S A N T O N I O G R A N D E T T P I N E D O , S E B A S T I A N D A V I D G R A N D E T T P I N E 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 8, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a r i aD e L aC ruz P i ne do L e a l a nd he rtw o s ons , E l i a s a nd S e ba s t i a n,2

ap p lie d f o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O th e rC ru e l, I n h u m a n , o rD e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . T he i m m i gr a t i on j udge ( “ I J ” ) de ni e d the appl i c a t i on, a nd the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm e d. T he p e t i t i o n e r s , th r o u g h c o u n s e l , s e e kr e v i e w. P et i t i on er s m ake tw o argum ent s on app ea l . F i rs t , they argue thatthe IJerre d by de ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on on the ba s i s of a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng. S e c ond, the y a r gue tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e doe s nots upportthe I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on t o de ny thei r app l i ca t i on . T hey c l ai m thatthey have a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n b y g u e r illa s w h o h a v e im p u te d ap o litic a l o p in io n to th e m a n d w is h to ha rm the m orr e c rui tthe i re l de rs on. W hen the B IA expres sl y a do pt s the IJ ’ s dec i si on , as i n thi s c as e, w e r evi ew both the B I A a nd the I Jde c i s i ons . A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W e r e vi e w l e ga l de t e rm i na t i ons de novo. M oha m m e d v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 -48 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). W e r evi ew fa ctual d et erm i n at i o n s u n d er th e su b st an t i al ev i d en ce t est , an d “ m u staffi rm th e [IJ’ s] de c i s i on i f

i ti s s upport e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1283- 84 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons o m i tt ed ). W e m ay rev erse a d en i al o f asyl u m u n d er th e su b st an t i al ev i d en ce t est3

“o n lyif th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b yth e ap p lic a n t is s o p o w e r f u l th a t ar e a s o n ab le fa ct fi nd erw ou l d h ave t o con cl ud e thatthe re qu i si t e f ear of per se cut i on exi st s. ” M a z a r i e gos v. O f

f i c e of the U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2001) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um , an al i en m ustshow w i th speci fi c, cred i b l e, an d d i rectev i d en ce ei th er (1 ) p astp ersecu t i o n b ecau se o f a st atu t o ri l yl i st ed fact o r, o r (2 ) a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n b ased o n a st atu t o ri l yl i s t e d f a c t or . 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) . A n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on a l one m a y b e f a t a l t o a n a s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n wh e r e th e ap p l i c a n tp r e s e n t s o n l yh i s o wn t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e . F or gue v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ yG e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1287 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . B u t u n le s s th e I Jm a k e s a“c le a n d e te rm in a tio n [ ] o f c r e d ib ility ,” w e assu m e th ata cred i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n w as n o td i sp o si t i v e, an d th atth e IJ al so r e l i e d on the i ns uf

f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e . Y a ng v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . F or exam pl e, i n Y ang, even tho ug h the IJdesc ri bed an app l i cant ’ s c l ai m s a s “r id ic u lo u s f

ab r ic a tio n ” a n d “e x tr e m e lyin c o n s is te n t,” th e I Jd id n o t e x p r e s s lys ta te w he the rs he f

ound Y a ng’ s t e s t i m ony t o be c r e di bl e . W e the r e f or e a s s um e d tha tthe c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons w e r e notdi s pos i t i ve i n the I J ’ s de ni a l of the appl i c a t i on, an d w en t o n to re v iew w h eth erth er e w as su b stan ti al ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e I J’s de t e rm i na t i on.4

H er e, the IJsa i d o nl y that“ ce rt ai n i ncon si st enci es do som ew hatre du ce cr edi bi l i ty, ” and thatsuch i ncon si st enci es “ m ustbe consi dere d b y the [c ] ou rtas som ew hatof an i ss ue as t o cre di bi l i ty. ” T hi s di d n otconst i tut e a“ cl ean de t e rm i na t i on” of

c r e di bi l i ty . W e the r e f

or e a s s um e tha tthe I Jr e l i e d a l s o on the i ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the pe t i t i one r s ’ e vi de nc e , a nd nots i m pl yon af a i l ur e t o be l i e ve the pe t i t i one r s . S e e Y a ng, 418 F . 3d a t1201. A c c or di ngl y , w e turn t o the que s t i on of w he the rthe I J ’ s de c i s i on t o de nythe appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um w a s s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . T he S e c r e t a ryof H om el and S ec uri ty or the A tt orney G ener al has di sc re t i on t o g rantas yl um i f an 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 .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s: a n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n yc o u n tryo f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountrybe c aus e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. IN A § 1 0 1 (a)(4 2 )(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(4 2 )(A ). T o est ab l i sh asyl u m el i g i b i l i ty, th e al i en m u st , w i th sp eci fi c an d cred i b l e ev i d en ce, est ab l i sh ei th er (1 ) p ast pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof as t a tut or i l yl i s t e d f

a c t or , or( 2) a“ w e l l - f

ounde d f e a r ” of f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n b a s e d o n as t a tu t o r i l yl i s t e d f a c t o r . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( a ) , ( b ) ; Al N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . A n a lie n w h o s h o w s p a s t p e r s e c u tio n r a is e s ar e b u ttab le5

p r e s u m p tio n o f

aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A n a l i e n w ho ha s nots how n pa s tpe r s e c ut i on m a ys t i l l be e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um i f he c a n de m ons tr a t e aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof af utur e thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e orf r e e dom on the b a s is o f ap r o te c te d g r o u n d . 8 C .F .R . § § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . T o e s tab lis h a“w e llf o u n d e d f e a r , ” a n ap p l i c a n tmu s ts h o w th a th e h a s af e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i n h i s h o me c o u n try a n d th a t “th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ilityo f s u f f e r in g s u c h p e r s e c u tio n if he ors he w e r e t o r e turn t o tha tc ountry . ” 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i ) . A n a s y l um appl i cantcl ai m i ng pers ec ut i on on the basi s of pol i t i ca l op i ni on m ustshow (1) that he ha s apol i t i c a l opi ni on, a nd ( 2) tha the w a s e i the rpe r s e c ut e d f ortha topi ni on, or h as a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f b ei n g p ersecu t ed b ecau se o f th ato p i n i o n . IN S v . E l i asZ ac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 3, 11 2 S . C t . 81 2, 81 6 (19 92 ). P e t i t i one r s a r gue tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e di d nots upportthe I J ’ s de ni a l of the i rappl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um . T he yf

i r s tc l a i m tha tthe yw e r e pe r s e c ut e d bythe R e v o lu tio n a ry A rm e d F o r c e s o f C o lo m b ia( F A R C ) . T h e p e titio n e r s te s tif ie d th a t a c o u s in tr ie d to r e c ru it th e e ld e rs o n , E lia s , in to th e F A R C . W h e n E lia s r e f u s e d to jo in , E lia s ’s f

a th e rR o b e rto c o n f

r o n te d th e c o u s in . A s ac o n s e q u e n c e , th e c o u s in an d o th ers th reat en ed th e p et i t i o n ers o n sev eral o ccasi o n s. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport e d the I J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthi s di d not s uf f i c e t o s how pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof as t a tut or i l yl i s t e d f

a c t or . T he pet i t i on er s f

ai l ed t o sho w thatthe al l eged pers ec ut i on w as on ac coun tof a6

s t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f

a c t or . T he y di d notpr e s e nta nye vi de nc e tha tthe thr e a t s or hara ss m entw er e bas ed on ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar soci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . R ather, the evi dence t ended t o sho w that pet i t i on er s w er e har as se d b ec ause F A R C w ant ed E l i as t o j oi n. T he S up re m e C ou rt h as reco g n i zed th atg u eri l l a recru i tm en teffo rt s al o n e are n o tsu ffi ci en tt o sh o w p ast pe r s e c ut i on, be c aus e “ ape r s on. . . m i ghtr e s i s tr e c rui tm e ntf orava r i e tyof re as on s–fe arof com bat , a des i re t o rem ai n w i th o ne’ s f am i l y and fr i ends, a des i re t o e arn abe tt e rl i vi ng i n c i vi l i a n l i f e , t o m e nt i on onl yaf

e w . ” E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . a t482, 112 S . C t . a t815. T hus , i n a ddi t i on t o gue r i l l ar e c rui tm e ntor h arassm en t , a p et i t i o n er m u stsh o w “ th atth e g u eri l l as w i l l p ersecu t e h i m b ecau se of [a ] po l i t i ca l op i ni on , ra ther than b ec ause of hi s r ef usal t o fi gh tw i th them . ” I d. at 4 8 3 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 8 1 6 ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . P e titio n e r s ’ e v id e n c e r e la te d o n lyto the f a c tof a tt e m pt e d gue r i l l ar e c rui tm e nta nd the c orr e s pondi ng thr e a t s . T hus , on the w hol e r e c or d, the I J ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe ydi d nots uf f e rpa s tpe r s e c ut i on on the basi s of ast atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. H a vi ng f a i l e d t o s how pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, pe t i t i one r s ne xta r gue tha tthe yha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. T hi s c l a i m f a i l s f orthe s a m e r e a s on: even i f they c ou l d sho w a f ear of f uture per se cut i on , they have notpres ent ed e v id e n c e s h o w in g th a t th e irf e a ris lin k e d to r a c e , p o litic a l o p in io n , m e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , r e lig io n , o rn a tio n a lity . “[ E ]v id e n c e th a t e ith e ris7

c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f

p r iv a te v io le n c e o rth e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w ith g u e r illa s . . . d o e s n o t c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n as ta tu to r ily prot ec t ed grou nd . ” Rui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 0 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). P et i t i on er s a tt em ptt o sat i sf y the st atut ory def

i ni t i on by cl ai m i ng thatE l i as b e lo n g s to a“p a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p ” : “y o u n g m e n r e c ru ite d b yu n la w f u l g u e r illa f a c tio n s .” B u t th e B I A h a s r e je c te d th e a s s e rtio n th a t y o u n g m e n in c e rta in coun tri es w ho ar e t ar get ed by gu er i l l a r ec rui t er s c on st i tut e apart i cul arsoci al g r o u p . S e e Ma tt e ro f

Vi g i l , 1 9 I . &N . De c . 5 7 2 , 5 7 4 ( B I A 1 9 8 8 ) . Mo r e o v e r , we have previ ou sl y uph el d the B IA ’ s i nt erpret at i on of “ part i cul arsoci al grou p” as req u i ri n g “ a co m m o n i m m u t ab l e ch aract eri st i c th ati s fu n d am en t al t o i t s m em b ers’ i ndi vi dua l i de nt i t i e s orc ons c i e nc e s . ” C a s t i l l o- A r i a s v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 446 F . 3d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 6 - 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A g r o u p c o m p o s e d o f a ll y o u n g m e n in C o lo m b ia r e c ru ite d b y g u e r illaf

a c tio n s is f

a rto o b r o a d a n d ill- d e f

in e d to m e e t th a t d e f

in itio n . B e c aus e pe t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de al i nk t o one of the gr ounds e num e r a t e d i n the s t a tut e , the I Jdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. P e t i t i one r s f

i na l l y c l a i m tha tthe ys uppl i e d the r e qui s i t e ne xus t o the s ta tu to ry c a te g o r ie s b y w a y o f ath e o ryo f

im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . W e h a v e h e ld tha t“ [ a ] n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, w he the rc orr e c t l yori nc orr e c t l ya ttr i but e d, m a y c ons t i tut e agr ound f oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pol i t i c a l pe r s e c ut i on w i thi n the m eani ng of the IN A . ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 89 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed).8

“ A n a s y l um appl i c a ntm a y pr e va i l on athe oryof i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on i f he show s thatthe pers ec ut or fa l se l y a ttri bu t ed an op i ni on t o h i m , and then p er se cut ed hi m because of thatm i st aken bel i ef abou thi s vi ew s. ” I d. (a l t er at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). B uti n the cont extof forc i bl e r ec rui tm ent , “ the m er e e xi st ence o f ag e n e r a liz e d ‘p o litic a l’ m o tiv e u n d e r ly in g th e g u e rr illa s ’ f o r c e d r e c ru itm e n t is i na de qua t e t o e s t abl i s h ( a nd, i nde e d, goe s f a rt o r e f ut e ) the pr opos i t i on tha t[ the pe t i t i one r ] f

e a r s pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof pol i t i c a l opi ni on, a s [ I N A ] § 101( a ) ( 42) re qu i re s. ” E l i as -Z ac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . at48 2, 11 2 S . C t . at81 6 (em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). P e t i t i one r s c l a i m tha tthe gue r i l l a s w i l l i m put e apol i t i c a l opi ni on t o the m on the ba s i s of

the i rr e s i s t a nc e t o the e f f ort s t o r e c rui tE l i a s . B utthe yha ve not s pe c i f i e d the c ont e ntof

thi s i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, a nd thus c a nnots how w hy the gue r i l l a s m i ghtw a ntt o pe r s e c ut e the m f ori t . R a the r , the i re vi de nc e onl yt e nds t o s h o w th a tth e g u e r i l l a s h a r a s s e d th e m, a n d mi g h tc o n t i n u e t o h ar a s s th e m, because they r ef

used t o l etE l i as j oi n the F A R C : no tbecause F A R C tho ug htthey di sa gree d w i th i t s pol i t i ca l vi ew s. T o the ext entthatpet i t i on er s f ear the gu er i l l as s till w is h to r e c ru it E lia s , th is te n d s to r e f u te th e n o tio n th a t th e yw is h to p e r s e c u te h i m f o rh a v i n g p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s d i f f e r e n tf r o m th e i r s . Se e El i a s - Za c a r i a s , 5 0 2 U . S. a t 4 8 2 , 1 1 2 S .C t. a t 8 1 6 ( n o tin g th a t g u e r illa s ’ f o r c e d r e c ru itm e n t “g o e s f a rto r e f ut e ” ac l a i m of

pe r s e c ut i on on the ba s i s of pol i t i c a l opi ni on) . A l l udi ng t o the po l i t i ca l m ot i ves thatthe gu er i l l a m ov em entm aypo ss es s i s notenou gh t o carry9

pe t i t i one r s ’ bur de n. S e e i d. a t482, 112 S . C t . a t816 ( “ T he or di na rym e a ni ng of th e p h r a s e ‘p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f . . . p o litic a l o p in io n ’ in § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) is p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f th e v ic tim ’s p o litic a l o p in io n , n o t th e p e r s e c u to r ’s ” ) . P e titio n e r s m u s t s h o w th a t th e g u e r illa s w o u ld p e r s e c u te th e m o n th e b a s is o f th e ir po l i t i ca l bel i ef

s, and they have pres ent ed no evi dence t o sho w thatthey have a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof s uc h pe r s e c ut i on. P e titio n e r s a ls o f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e irf e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n is w e llf o u n d e d . W e h a v e p r e v io u s lyf o u n d it s ig n if

ic a n t th a t ap e titio n e r ’s “s o n a n d h is pare nt s have r em ai ned u nh arm ed i n the re gi on of C ol om bi a w here [pet i t i on er ] a l l e ge dl y w a s thr e a t e ne d. ” R ui z , 440 F . 3d a t1259. E l i a s ’ s f a the rR obe rt o, w ho c o n f r o n te d th e c o u s in a n d r e c e iv e d m a n yo f th e th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a lls , r e m a in s in C ol om bi aa nd ha s notbe e n ha rm e d. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e the r e f or e s upport e d the I J ’s d e te rm in a tio n , b o th b e c au s e p e titio n e r s f a ile d to s h o w th a t th e irf e a rw a s w e llf ounde d a nd be c aus e the i rf e a rw a s notl i nke d t o as t a tut or i l yl i s t e d gr ound. F i na l l y , e ve n i f

pe t i t i one r s c oul d ha ve e s t abl i s he d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pers ec ut i on , thei r c l ai m w ou l d st i l l fa i l because they produ ce d n o evi dence s h o w in g th e y c o u ld n o t a v o id p e r s e c u tio n b ym o v in g e ls e w h e r e in C o lo m b ia .

“ A ft er est ab l i sh i n g a ‘ w el l -fo u n d ed fear’ of p ersecu t i o n , th e al i en m u stest ab l i sh the pers ec ut i on cann otbe avoi ded b y r el ocat i ng w i thi n the subj ec tcoun try . ” S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 . P e titio n e r s w o u ld h a v e to s h o w n o t o n lyth a t g u e r illa10

a c t i vi ty i s w i de s pr e a d i n C ol om bi a : the yw oul d ha ve t o s how tha tgue r i l l a s w ho w ou l d speci fi ca l l y t ar getthem exi stw here ver they m i gh tm ov e i n C ol om bi a. Id. at 12 32 n. 7. W e pre vi ou sl y uph el d the deni al of an appl i ca t i on w here a pet i t i on er c l a i m i ng pe r s e c ut i on by gue r i l l a s “ w a s af a i r l yl ow - l e ve l s ol di e rw ho doe s not ap p ea r to h av e p laye d an es p ec iall y n o to rio u s r o le in th e w ar ” b ec au se “[w ]e c a nnots a y on thi s r e c or d tha the i s ahi gh- pr of i l e t a r ge t , ortha tgue r i l l a s out s i de the vi c i ni ty of

hi s hom e a r e l i ke l y t o i de nt i f ya nd pur s ue hi m . ” M a z a r i e gos , 241 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 7 . S im ila r ly , a s th e I Jf o u n d , th e p e titio n e r s d id n o t a tte m p t to r e lo c a te b e f o r e d e p a rtin g C o lo m b ia , a n d in f a c t, E lia s ’s f

a th e rR o b e rto s till liv e s th e r e . P e titio n e r s th u s p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t th e yw o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d if th e y r e lo c a te d w ith in C o lo m b ia , a n d f o rth is r e a s o n to o th e I Jd id n o t e rrin d i s mi s s i n g th e i rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. P e t i t i one r s a l s o c l a i m tha tthe ya r e e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f u n d e rth e CAT. W i th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , u n l i k e a s y l u m, i s man d a t o ry . To q u a lif y f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A , a n a lie n m u s t s h o w th a t if r e turne d t o hi s c ountry , the a l i e n’ s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ount of ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l o p in io n . I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . G e n e r a lly , w h e r e a n a lie n f a ils t o m e e tthe “ w e l l - f

ounde d f e a r ” s t a nda r d f

ore s t abl i s hi ng a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , the al i en cann otes t abl i sh the hi gh erbu rden for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . A l N ajj ar ,11

2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 - 9 3 . S im ila r ly , th e b u r d e n o n th e a lie n s e e k in g C A T r e lie f is hi gh erthan the bu rden i m po se d o n the as yl um se eker . Id. at13 03 . T o sho w an e nt i t l e m e ntt o C A T r e l i e f , the pe t i t i one rm us ts how “ tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n not thathe or she w ou l d b e t ortured i f r em ov ed t o the prop osed coun tryof re m ov al . ” Id. B ec ause subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt ed the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i on er s w er e n o t eli g ib le fo r a sy lu m , su b stan ti al ev id en ce also su p p o rted th e I J’s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i on er s are no tent i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al or re l i ef u n d e rth e C AT . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. DE NI E D.