2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-11-2010 

# Zap at a-M arul and a v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2476

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zap at a -M ar ul and a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2088. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2088I M G - 0 0 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2476

___________ CA RL OS M . Z AP AT A- M AR UL ANDA; GL OR I A I . GAL E ANO DE Z AP AT A, P eti ti o n ers v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . 97- 849- 375 and 97- 849- 376) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A l ber t o R i efkohl

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember2, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary11, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM P eti ti o n ers C arlos Z ap ata-M aru land a a n d G lori a G alea n o d e Z ap ata (“p eti ti o n ers” ), hus band and w i fe, ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of C ol om bi a. T heys eek r evi ew of a f i nalZ apat a- M arul anda i s t he l ead pe t i t i oner , and G al eano de Z apat a s oughtder i vat i ve 1 asy lum p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(3 )(A ). FA R C i s “a l eft i s tguerr i l l a r evol ut i onarygr oup, . . . act i ve thr oughoutm uch of 2 C ol om bi a. T he FA R C w as offi ci al l yform ed i n 1966 and has cont i nuous l yand oft en vi ol ent l yoppos ed the C ol om bi an governm ents i nce thatt i m e. T he FA R C i s des i gnat ed as a t err or i s tor gani zat i on byt he U ni t ed St at es G overnm ent . W hi l e the FA R C i s act i ve th ro u g h o u t C o lo m b ia, it h o ld s p a rticu lar sw a yin m a n yru ra l ar e a s w h e re it ef f e c tiv e ly contr ol s l ocal pol i t i cs and the ci vi l i an popul at i on. ” G om ez- Z ul uaga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 527 F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 o rde r of rem o v al. B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on t hatpet i t i oner s do nothave a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on and, a s a re s u lt, th a t th e ya re n o t e n title d to a s y lu m , w e w ill d e n yth e irp e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. Pet i t i oner s l as tent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on A pr i l 26, 2003. I n N ovember2003, t heyw er e s erved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng them as ove r s t ay s i n vi ol at i on of 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) . P e t i t i o n e r s c o n c e d e d r e mo v a b i l i t ya n d a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). In 1 t he alt ernat i ve, peti t i on ers request ed v olunt arydep arture. In suppo rtof thei r r equ est s, Z apat a- M arul anda, as l ead pe t i t i oner , ar gued thathe had be en per s ecut ed byguerr i l l as fr om t he R evol ut i onaryA r m ed For ces of C ol om bi a ( “FA R C ”) on acc ountof an i m put ed 2 p o litic a l o p in io n . A c c o rd in g to Z a p a ta- M a ru lan d a , this p e rse c u tio n b e g a n in 1 9 9 7 a f ter h e – in h is pos i t i on as a s upervi s ori n a t ext i l e fa ct ory– r epor t ed a l os s of i nvent oryi n t he fa br i c us ed3

t o m ake uni form s fort he arm ed for ces of C ol om bi a. T he arm yi nt el l i gence uni t( r ather than the p o li ce ) co n d u cted an inv esti g ati o n an d d isco v ere d that sev era l w o rke rs w ere s t eal i ng t he mat er i al and s el l i ng i tt o t he guerr i l l as ; thi s al l ow ed the guerr i l l as t o s ew and ta ilo r a u th e n tic -l o o k in g u n if o rm s . T h e w o rk e rs w e re e v e n tu a lly f ir e d a n d a rr e s te d . Som ehow t he guerr i l l as di s cover ed Zapat a- M arul anda’ s i nvol vementi n t he i nves t i gat i on and t ar get ed hi m as a “mi l i t aryobj ect i ve” f orhi s act i ons . Z apat a- M arul anda r ece i ved t hr eat eni ng phone ca l l s , dur i ng w hi ch the s t ol en fa br i c w as r efe r ence d, and thr ee u n k n o w n m e n a p p e a re d a t Z a p a ta -M a ru la n d a ’s w o rk p la c e lo o k in g f o r h im . B eca us e of hi s fea rof r etr i but i on fr om the guer i l l as , Z apat a- M arul anda w as for ced t o qui thi s j ob of 26 y ear s , and he a nd hi s w i fe moved fr om pl ace t o pl ace ( i ncl udi ng t hr ee t r i p s t o t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s ) . Za p a t a - M a ru l a n d a a l l e g e d th a td e s p i t e th e s e mo v e s , F ARC caughtup w i t h hi m i n J ul yof 2001 w hi l e he w as i n B arr anqui l l a. A tthatt i m e, thr ee men

– w h o w e re a lleg e d lyg u e rrillas lo o k in g f o r Z a p a ta- M a ru lan d a – w e re in a sh o o to u t w ith p o lice a c ro ss th e stre e t f ro m w h e re p e tit io n e r w a s h id in g o u t. A ll th re e w e re f a tally w o u n d e d . F o r th e n e x t y e a r o r so , p e tit io n e rs m o v e d a ro u n d to e n su re th e ir o w n sa f e ty and eve ntual l yr el ocat ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es forgood i n 2003. A ft era hea r i ng dur i ng w hi ch Zapat a- M arul anda t es t i fi ed t o t hes e eve nt s , the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en ied p eti ti o n ers a ll reli ef w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f v o lun tary departur e. T he I J char act er i zed pe t i t i oner s ’ cas e as one amount i ng t o “a r eques tfor pr ot ect i on underors i m i l art o ourw hi s t l e bl ow erl aw s . ” ( I J O p. at6. ) T he I J fur t herW h ile th e IJ n o ted th a t a n e w sp a p e r a rticle th a t Z a p a ta- M a ru lan d a su b m itt e d in 3 s uppor tof the J ul y2001 s hoot outw as neverr ebut t ed byD H S, he nonethel es s s t at ed that th e a rt ic le (a ls o c h a ra c te ri z e d a s “ th e b e s t e v id e n c e in th e c a s e ” ) h a d in te rn a l p ro b le m s . A l t hough t he art i cl e r epor t ed thatt he s hoot outoccurr ed on J ul y28, Z apat a- M arul anda s t at ed thati thappene d on J ul y29. M or eover , the I J not ed thatthe art i cl e ment i oned Z apat a- M arul anda byname and i nt i m at ed thathe had be en t ar get ed foras s as s i nat i on, but he nonethel es s cr i t i ci zed the art i cl e forfai l i ng t o i ndi cat e the r eas on forthe att empt ed as s as s i nat i on and the for ce be hi nd t hatat t empt . D es pi t e thes e obs ervat i ons , the I J di d not m ake a n adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. 4 comm ent ed thatt he “mai n i s s ue i n thes e ca s es i s w hetherthe conne ct i on betw een the al l eged pe r s ecut orand the [pe t i t i oner s ] has been e s t abl i s hed. I d. at7. T he I J concl uded t hatZ apat a- M arul anda’ s t es t i m onyw as nots uppor t i ve of s uch a “ l i nk. ” W i t hout 3 di s cus s i ng pet i t i oner s ’ pr ay erforr el i ef i n t he form of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval orundert he C A T , t he I J deni ed pet i t i oner s ’ r eques t s forr el i ef a nd or der ed them re m oved af t era 60- dayper i od of vol unt arydepartur e. T he B I A di s m i s s ed pet i t i oner s ’ appea l . C i t i ng t o M att erof Fuent es , 19 I & N D ec. 65 8, 66 1 (B IA 19 88 ), t he B IA con cl ud ed thatZ apata- M arul and a did not s uff er past per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. I tfur t herconcl uded that , i n anyevent , t he a c ts d e sc rib e d b yZ a p a ta- M a ru lan d a d id n o t d e tail m istre a tm e n t o f su f f icie n t se v e rityto cons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A l i kew i s e det erm i ned thatZ apat a- M arul anda doe s nothave a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, r eas oni ng thathe has neverbeen phy s i cal l yharm ed i n C ol om bi a, and anyal l eged f eari s bel i ed bypet i t i oner s ’ r epea t ed t r avel s back a nd for t h betw een the U ni t ed St at es and C ol om bi a af t erthe J ul y2001 s h o o t o u t , b e f

o r e f i n a l l y c o m i n g t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d s e e k i n g a s yl u m i n 2 0 0 3 . F i n a l l y,5

t he B I A concl uded thatpet i t i oner s nece s s ar i l yfai l ed t o s at i s fythe s t andar d for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , ort o es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatZ apat aM arul anda w oul d be t or tur ed byt he governm entof C ol om bi a upon r eturni ng t o t hat c o u n t r y . P e t i t i o n e r s f

i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B ec au se th e B IA p ro v id e d its o w n a n a ly sis , w e re v iew th e d e c isio n o f th e B IA . S e e L u k w a g o v . A sh c ro f t, 329 F. 3d 157, 166 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , s ee Bri s eno- Fl or es v. A t t ’ yG en. , 492 F. 3d 226, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , uphol di ng t hem “unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he co n tr ary . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ); see also D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2003) ( en banc ) . W e w i l l t r eatZ apat a- M arul anda’ s t es t i m ony , s um m ar i zed a bove, as c re d ib le. S e e C a m a ra v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 8 0 F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ U n d e r th e A c t, i f no adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i s expl i ci t l ym ade, the appl i cantorw i t nes s s hal l have a re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f c re d ib ility o n a p p e a l” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d , q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).

III . T h e o n lyissue p rese n ted is w h ethe r th e B IA ’s de term ination that p eti ti o n ers a reB yfai l i ng t o chal l enge the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thattheyar e i nel i gi bl e for 4 w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef i n t hei ropeni ng br i ef, pet i t i oner s have w ai ved t hos e i s s ues . See G hana v. H ol l and, 226 F. 3d 175, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “R ul e 28( a) of the F ed era l R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re a n d o u r L o ca l A p p ell ate R u le 28 . 1 (a) req u ir e appel l ant s t o s etfor t h t he i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al and t o pr es entan ar gum enti n s uppor tof t hos e i s s ues i n t hei ropeni ng br i ef” ) ; s ee a l s o C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 221, 235 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 6 n o t e n title d to a s y lu m is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it is . 4 T o obt ai n as y l um as r efuge es , pet i t i oner s m us ts how thattheyar e unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o C ol om bi a bec aus e of pa s tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) . “ [ P ] e r s e c u t i o n c o n n o t e s e x t r e me beh avior , i ncludi ng ‘threat s t o li fe, con fi nem ent, t orture, and econ om i c res t ri ct i on s so s ever e thatt heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A demonstr at i on of a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, byi t s el f, w oul d ent i t l e pet i t i oner s t o as y l um r el i ef. See C amar a, 580 F. 3d at 202. A demonstr at i on of pas tper s ecut i on, on t he otherhand, “r ai s es a pr es um pt i on of a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n ” th a t s h if ts th e b u rd e n to th e G o v e rn m e n t. A b d u lr a h m a n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he al l eged pe r s ecut i on m us tbe “on a ccountof a s t atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ound t hati s comm i t t ed byt he governm entorbyfor ces the governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ’ ” V al di vi ezo- G al damez v. A t t ’ yG en. , 502 F. 3d 285, 288 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (qu o tat ion o m itted); see also S ing h v . G o n za les, 4 0 6 F . 3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“[A ]n a p p lic a n t m u s t s h o w th a t th e p e rs e c u tio n w a s m o tiv a te d , at leasti n p art , byone of the7

p rotec ted c h ara cterist ics”) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). R ac e, rel igion an d p o li ti ca l op inion are all statu tori lyen u m era ted g rou n d s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). A s a lre a d yn o ted , the B IA re lied o n its d e c isio n in M a tter o f F u e n tes to su p p o rt its concl us i on t hatpet i t i oner s had “nots uffe r [ed] pas tper s ecut i on i n C ol om bi a on ac countof a p rotec ted g rou n d u n d er the A ct. ” (B IA O p . at 2.) Itrea so n ed that rev o luti o n ary s t ruggl es i nvol vi ng guerr i l l as oft en i nvol ve vi ol ence agai ns t“ci vi l i an i ns t i tut i ons that s uppor tdom es t i c s t abi l i t yand the s tr ength of the exi s t i ng governm ent , ” and thatthe danger s t hos e i ns t i tut i ons fac e “a r e no more r el at ed t o t hei rper s onal char act er i s t i cs or p o li ti ca l beliefs tha n are the d an g ers f ac ed b ym il it aryco m b atan ts. ” Id . T h e B IA ’s r el i ance on M at t erof Fuent es i s m i s pl ace d as i tdoes notappea rthatZ apat a- M arul anda w as t ar get ed byFA R C beca us e the t ext i l e pl antw her e he w or ked made uni form s fort he mi l i t a r y . I td o e s n o ta p p e a r , h o we v e r , th a tZa p a t a - M a ru l a n d a wa s t a r g e t e d b yF ARC beca us e the t ext i l e pl antw her e he w or ked made uni form s forthe mi l i t ary . R ather , he, a n d h e a lo n e , w a s ta rg e ted b e c a u se th e in f o rm a tio n h e p ro v id e d sa b o tag e d F A R C ’s illicit su p p lyo f m ili tar y -iss u e d m a ter ials th a t w a s b e in g sto len b yits o p e ra tiv e s w o rk in g w ith in th a t c o m p a n y . B uteven a s s um i ng bot h t hatZ apat a- M arul anda w as t ar get ed byFA R C beca us e of an im p u ted p o li ti ca l op inion , see , e.g., D elga d o v . M u k ase y , 5 0 8 F . 3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 7 (2d C ir . 2007) ( pet i t i onerw ho w oul d be t ar get ed byFA R C i n t he futur e forbetr ay i ng them, w hen coupl ed w i t h governm ent ’ s unw i l l i ngnes s t o contr ol FA R C , coul d s how per s ecut i on forM or eover , pet i t i oner s ’ chi l dr en have r es i ded i n C ol om bi a s i nce the t i m e of the 5 a lle g e d p e rs e c u tio n w ith o u t a n yh a rm . S e e A b d u lr a h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 2 n .3 ( pr es um pt i on of w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on can be r ebut t ed w i t h evi dence that pet i t i onercan r eas onabl yavoi d per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpartof hi s orher co u n try ); cf. L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“[W ]he n fa m il ym em b ers r emai n i n pet i t i oner ’ s nat i ve countr yw i t houtm eet i ng harm , and ther e i s no i ndi vi dual i zed s how i ng t hatpet i t i onerw oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on, the r eas onabl enes s of a p eti ti o n er’s w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n is dim inishe d ”).

8 an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on i n t he form of oppos i t i on t o FA R C ) , and thatthe J ul y2001 sh o o tou t i s su ff

ici en t t o co n sti tute p ast p erse cu ti o n , see , e.g., S an ch ez Jim en ez v . A tt ’y Ge n . , 4 9 2 F . 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 3 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( a t t e mp t e d mu r d e ro f p e t i t i o n e rb yF ARC cons t i tut es pas tper s ecut i on) , t he r ecor d r evea l s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o r ebutany pr es um pt i on t hatpet i t i oner s ’ fea rof futur e per s ecut i on i s w el l - founded. See C amar a, 580 F . 3 d a t2 0 2 ( “ a we 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 i s th e t o u c h s t o n e o f a s y l u m” ) . As a d v a n c e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t, a n d a s s p e c if ic a lly o u tlin e d b yth e B IA , [Z ap ata-M aru lan d a]’s claim to a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on i s under cutby t he fact t hat he t r avel ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es o n th re e p re v io u s o c c a sio n s, a n d re tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia e a c h tim e . A ll t hr ee tr i ps to the U ni t ed St at es occurr ed dur i ng the t i m e fr ame t hat [ Z a p a ta- M a ru lan d a ] a lleg e s th e p e rse c u tio n w a s ta k in g p lac e in C ol om bi a. Fi nal l y , [Zapat a- M arul anda] r emained i n C ol om bi a for near l yt w o y ear s aft ert he J ul y2001 s hootout[s i c] betw een the pol i ce and FA R C befor e fi nal l ycomi ng t o the U ni t ed St at es and fi l i ng for a s y lu m . ( B I A O p. at2. ) Fort hos e r eas ons , w e agr ee w i t h t he B I A thatpet i t i oner s do nothave a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. 5 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.