F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 1 3, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN THCIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1433 6 Non-Argum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI AN o. A 95- 233- 217 JEFF ERSON STEYN ALFONSO, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ay 13, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and P RY O R C ir cu it Judg es . PE R CU RIA M:Petitioner also sought r elief under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other * Cruel, Inhuman, or De gradingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”). H e adva nces in this appea l no claim of e rror

based on the denial of CAT r elief. 2 Pe tit ion er Je ff er son St ey

n A lf onso pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of Im m igr at ionAppe al s ( “ BI A ”) or de r af fi rming w ith out

opi nio n th e im

m igr at ion j udge ’ s ( “ IJ ”) r em ova l or de r an d th e de nia l of his appl ic at ion s f

or a sy lum and withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n andNati on al ity Act (“ INA”), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58, 123 1( b) (3 ) . N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho wn; the pe tit ionis * de nie d. Whe nth e B IAad o p t s th e I J ’s o p i n i o nan ds um m ar i l y af fi rms th e I J ’s decision, the IJ’ s decision b ecom es the final re m oval order. Sepulveda v. U .S . At t o rn ey Ge n er al , 4 0 1 F. 3 d1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 (1 1 Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). We re v i ewth e I J ’s th fa ct ua l f ind ing s un de r the sub stanti al e vid en ce standard . I d. “Unde r thi s hi ghl y de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , the I J’ s de ci sio n c anbe r ev er se d on ly if the ev ide nc e ‘ co m

pe ls’ a re as ona

ble f ac t f ind er to fi nd o the rw ise . ” I d. ( quot ing IN S v. Elias-Z acar ias, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 n .1 (1992)). On 26 Marc h 200 2, the IN S char ged Petitioner with rem aining in the United St at es lo ng er tha n p erm it te d b y hi s en try do cu m en ts , invi ol at io n o f INA § 237( a) (1 )( B) , 8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (1 )( B) . P et iti one r w as a dm itt ed law fu lly to the Unit ed S tate s on8 N ove m

be r 2001 ; hi s auth or iz at ionto re m ai n e xpi re d on7

### 3

Fe br uary 200 2. A t a

he ar ing be fo re the I J, P et iti one r co nc ed ed r em ova bil ity but so ug htasylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andpro te ct io n u nd er the CAT. Petitioner, a

native and citizen of Colum bia, w as a university

trained engineer who claim ed to have been targeted by FA RC m em

bers beginnin g in May 2001 . Ac cording to Petitio ner, the FA RC w anted inform ation abou t m ilitary flights to which the FA RC believed Pe tition er had ac cess because P etitioner worked for

a com pany that did bu siness with the Colum bian gov ernm ent. Be fore the IJ, Petitioner chronicled a serie s of encounters with FA RC m em bers that included (i) rece ipt of vulg ar phone calls; (ii) tw o kidn aping in cidents; and (iii) a sh oo ti ng in ci de nt , all of wh ic h wer e acc om pa ni edby thre at s t o P et it io ne r’s li fe. Pe tit ion er a lso te sti fi ed

that he ha d be ena ct ive w iththe c om m uni ty board in his country . Petitioner claim ed entitlem ent to refugee status because the FA RC viewed him

as an enem

y based on his busin ess dealings with the Colum bian go ve rn m en t an d b ecau se of h is co ns is te ntrefu sa ls to he lp th e FARC . The I J, af ter re viewing Petitioner’ s testim ony and the docum entary

evidence he sub m itt ed , c onc lud ed

that P et iti one r fa ile d to m ee t hi s burd enof pr oof in es ta bli shi ng r ef

uge e status be ca

use his te sti m ony

w as not c re dib le . T he I J se t out in s om e de ta il the m at er ia ls unde rl y ing he r adve rs e cr ed ibi lity a sse ssm ent and a lso noted th at the rec ord indicated that “ the concept of filing for political asy lum wa s4

very m uch planned andprear

ranged prior to [Petitioner] com ing to the United St at es .” Pe tit ion er take s is sue w iththe c onc lus ionthat he f ai le d to pr of

fe r suf fi ci ent evidence to supp ort a finding of past persecutionand a w ell-founded fear of future pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of the pol iti ca l op ini on i m

put ed to him by the F A RC . B ut Pe tit ion er f ai ls t o a ddr es s th e IJ ’ s f

ind ing that P et iti one r w as inc re dib le ; this credibility

determination-- m

uch like oth er f

indin gs of fact - - is review ed under the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st. S ee D -M uhum ed v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en er al , 388 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) ( cr ed ibi lity de te rminatio ns are r ev ie w ed und er the th subs tanti al e vid en ce te st) . O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rminatio n is m ad e, the al ie n a ppl ic ant be ar s th e bur de n “ to s howthat the I J’ s c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not supp orted by

‘ specific, cogent reasons’ or w as not based on subst antial evidence.” Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att orne y

Gene ral , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng D- th Muhum ed, 388 F. 3d at 819 ). Th e I Jp re s en t eds p ec i fi c, co g en tre as o n s fo r c o n cl u d i n g th atPe t i t i o n er ’s te st im on y was i nc red ib le ; an d s ub st an ti al reco rdev id en ce s up po rts th os e rea so ns . Se e D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9. And, a s w e have not ed , P et iti one r take s no iss ue w iththi s f

ind ing . An I J’ s de ta ile d a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rminatio n by

it se lf m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he de ni al of r el ie f. See Fo rg ue , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7; D-5

Muhum ed, 388 F. 3d at 819 ). But, of course, when an a pplicant produces other ev ide nc e, the I J m

ust c onsi de r that othe r ev ide nc e as w el l. F or gue , 401 F . 3d at 12 87 . T he I J c onsi de re d a ll the r ec or d e vid en ce - - Pe tit ion er ’ s te sti m ony and the docum entary

evidence related to his claim -- and concluded th at Petitioner fa iled to m ee t hi s burd enof

pr oof to es ta bli sh h is r ef

uge e status . S ee A l N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 4 ( 11 Ci r. 200 1) ( as y lum appl ic ant be ar s burd enof th pr ovi ng “re fu ge e” status ); 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) . Upon re vie wof the r ec or d a s a whol e, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n an d dr aw ing a ll inf

er en ce s su

ppor tiv e of that de ci sio n, se e A de fe m i v. A shc ro ft , 386 F. 3d 1 022, 102 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) , pe tit ionf or c er t. f ile d ( O ct obe r 28, 200 4 th (N o. 04- 7944 ), P et iti one r fa ils to showr ev er sib le e rr or in the de nia l of

a sy lum or w ithhol din g of

r em ova l. PETITION DENIED.