FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APRIL12 , 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. 05- 15084 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 219- 545 & A 95- 219- 547 M A R G A R I T A S A L D A R R I A G A , J O R G E E D U A R D O V A R G A S B A E Z , S E R G I O A R T U R O V A R G A S S A L D A R R I A G A , 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 n O r de rof

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

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P et i t i on er s M ar gari t a S al darr i aga ( “ S al darr i aga” ), Jorge E du ar do V ar gas B a e z ( “J o r g e ” ) , a n d S e r g io A r tu r o V a r g a s S a ld a rr ia g a( “S e r g io ” ) ( c o lle c tiv e lyThe petiti oners do not challeng e in this court the denial of relief under the United Nations 1 Conve nti o nA g ain s t T o rtu rean d O th er Cr u e l, Inhuma

n , o r D e gradingTre atm ent o r Pun is hment (“CAT” ), and, thus, this issue is abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d. 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 “ pe t i t i one r s ” ) , a l l c i t i z e ns of C ol om bi a , thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i on thi s c our tf or r e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ’ s ” ) or de ra f f i rm i ng w i thout opi ni on the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) de c i s i on t o de ny the i rappl i c a t i on f or as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct ( “ I N A ” ) . T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe I J e rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tS a l da rr i a ga

1 d id n o t s u f

f e rp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rth e th r e a t o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n s ix thr e a t s tha ts he r e c e i ve d f r om be i ng am e m be rof the L i be r a l P a r ty , i nc l udi ng a thr e a tf r om am a n w ho i de nt i f

i e d hi m s e l f

a s am e m be rof

the N a t i ona l L i be r a t i on A rm y ( “ E L N ” ) . T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe I J e rr e d i n appl y i ng as t a nda r d of

“ ph ys i ca l m i stre atm ent ” or “ harm ” t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on and i n fi nd i ng that the r e w a s no c orr e l a t i on be tw e e n S a l da rr i a ga ’ s pol i t i c a l a c t i vi t i e s a nd the gu erri l l as . T he pet i t i on er s f urther a rgue thatthe IJerre d i n d et erm i ni ng that S a l da rr i a gac oul d r e l oc a t e i n C ol om bi aa nd i n f i ndi ng tha tS a l da rr i a gaw a s not cr edi bl e. W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on i n thi s c as e, no tthe B IA ’ s, because the B IA a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thoutopi ni on, the r e by m a ki ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on the f in a l a g e n c y d e te rm in a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ; Mendo za v. U . S. A t t ’yThe REAL ID Act of

2005 amende d cre dibility determinations, adding I NA 2 §§ 208(b)( 3)(B )(i i i ), 240(c )(4) (C), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(3) (B )(iii), 1229a( c)(4)(C). Sec tion 10 1( a)( 3) and

(d), Pub . L . N o. 10 9- 13 , 1 19 Stat. 2 31 , 3 03 , 3 04 -0 5. Th e Act state s th at th e se provisions “shall apply

to applications for a sylum, withholdi ng , or other relief from removal made on or af ter”the date of

enactment of the ac t, May 11, 2005, and, thus , the provisi ons do not affe ct this appeal. Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. at 305. 3 G e n. , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 4 n .1 . (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T o th e e x ten t th at th e I J’s d eci si o n w as b ased o n a l eg al d et erm i n at i o n , rev i ew i s de no vo . D -M uh um ed v. U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). H ow ever , w e e xam i ne fa ctual f in d in g s u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. I d. a t 8 1 7 - 1 8 . U n d e rth is h ig h ly de f e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w , the I J ’ s de c i s i on m us tbe de f e rr e d t o i f

s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , unl e s s the e vi de nc e “ c om pe l s ” ar e a s onabl e f a c t f i nde rt o f i nd o th e rw is e . I

N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S . C t . 812, 815 n. 1, 11 7 L . E d. 2d 38 (199 2). T here fore , a f i nd i ng of fa ctw i l l be re vers ed “ on l y w hen the re cord com pel s are vers al ; the m er e f ac tthatthe re cord m aysupp orta c on tra ry concl usi on i s notenou gh t o j ust i fya r ever sa l . . . . ” A de fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 386 F . 3d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 2 4 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; se e a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “ [ T ] he a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve u n l ess an y reaso n ab l e ad j u d i cat o r w o u l d b e co m p el l ed t o co n cl u d e t o th e co n trary . . . .” ) . W e a l so re vi ew cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s und erthe subst ant i al evi dence te s t. R ui

zv . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , N o . 0 5 - 1 3 9 8 7 , ___F .3 d __( 1 1 th C ir . J a n . 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) . 24

T he tr i e rof

f a c tde t e rm i ne s c r e di bi l i ty unde rthi s t e s t , a nd thi s c our t“ m a y not subst i tut e i t s j ud gm entfor thatof the [I J] w i th res pectt o cre di bi l i ty f i nd i ng s. ” For gue v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . F u r th e rm o r e , [ T ]h e I J m u s t o f

f e rs p e c if ic , c o g e n t r e a s o n s f

o ra n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng. O nc e a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i s m a de , the bur de n i s on the appl i c a nta l i e n t o s how tha tthe I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de c i s i on w a s not supp ort ed by spec i fi c, cogentre as on s or w as no tbase d o n sub st ant i al e vi de nc e . A c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, l i ke a ny f a c tf i ndi ng, m a y not b e o v e r tu rn e d u n le s s th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls it. I d. a t 1 2 8 7 ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A ny a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y appl y f or as yl um , w hi ch the S ec re t ary of H om el and S ec uri ty or the A tt orney G ener al (“ A G ”) h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n ti f th e a l i e n i s a“ r e f

u g e e ” a s d e f

i n e d i n 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . See IN A § 2 08 (b)( 1)(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(1)(A ), as am ended b y th e R E A L I D A c t § 1 0 1 ( c ) , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 0 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; Al N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). T h atst atu t e d efi n es a “r e f u g e e ” a s : an y p er so n w h o is o u tsid e a n y c o u n try o f s u ch p er so n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . a n d w h o is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n d is un abl e or unw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, tha tc ountry be c aus e of

pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on ac c ou n t of r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or p ol i t i c alop i n i on . . . .5

8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he a s y l um appl i c a nt s c a rry the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory “ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus a nd the r e by e s t abl i s hi ng a s y l um e lig ib ility . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( a ) ; D -M uh um ed , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 8 1 8 .

“ T o est abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty bas ed on po l i t i ca l op i ni on or any other p ro t ect ed g ro u n d , th e al i en m u st , w i th cred i b l e ev i d en ce, est ab l i sh (1 ) p ast pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on ora ny othe rpr ot e c t e d gr ound, or ( 2) a‘ w e l l - f

ounde d f e a r ’ tha the rpol i t i c a l opi ni on ora ny othe rpr ot e c t e d gr ound w i l l cause f

uture pers ec ut i on . ” Se

pulv e da v . U

. S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1230- 31 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ) . A bs e ntc orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e , the appl i c a nt ’ s t e s t i m ony , “ i f c r e di bl e , m a ybe s uf

f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the b u r d e n o f

p r o o f .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( a ) . N e i the rthe I N A northe r e gul a t i ons de f i ne “ pe r s e c ut i on. ” W e ha ve s t a t e d, ho w ever , that“ pers ec ut i on i s a n extre m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than few i sol at ed 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, a nd . . . m e r e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s not am ou ntt o p er se cut i on . ” Se pulv e da , 401 F . 3d a t1231 ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . T o be a n a c tof pe r s e c ut i on, the be ha vi orm us tthr e a t e n de a th, puni s hm e nt , orthe in f lic tio n o f s u b s ta n tia l h a rm o rs u f f e r in g . See Sh a r i

f v . I NS , 8 7 F .3 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 5 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . “T h r e a ts a lo n e g e n e r a lly d o n o t c o n s titu te a c tu a l p e r s e c u tio n ; o n ly r a r e l y , w he n the y a r e s o i m m e di a t e a nd m e na c i ng a s t o c aus e s i gni f i c a nts uf f e r i ng or harm i n them se l ves, do threa t s perse qu al i fyas pers ec ut i on . ” V at ul evv.6

A s h c r o ft , 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 0 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “T o q u a lif y a s p e r s e c u tio n , a p e r s o n ’s e x p e r ie n c e m u s t r is e ab o v e u n p le a s a n tn e s s , h a r a s s m e n t, a n d e v e n b a s ic suff er i ng . ” Ne l

s o n v . I NS , 232 F . 3d 258, 263- 64 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( c i t i ng va r i ous ca se s r egar di ng pastpers ec ut i on and fi nd i ng thatthree epi sodes of s ol i t ary confi nem entac com pani ed by ph ys i ca l abuse di d n otconst i tut e per se cut i on ).

“ A show i ng of pastpers ec ut i on cr ea t es a pre sum pt i on of a ‘ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar , ’ subj ec tt o rebut t al by the IN S . ” Se pulv e da , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 ( c itin g 8 C .F .R § 208. 13( b) ( 1) ) . I f

, how e ve r , the a l i e n doe s note s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, s he be a r s the bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on by s how i ng th a t ( 1 ) s h e f

e a r s p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n h e rp o litic a l o p in io n o ro th e rs ta tu to r ily lis te d f a c to r ; ( 2 ) th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility s h e w ill s u f f e rp e r s e c u tio n if r e m ove d t o he rna t i ve c ountry ; a nd ( 3) s he c oul d nota voi d pe r s e c ut i on by r e l oc a t i ng t o a nothe rpa r tof he rc ountry , i f

unde ra l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s i tw oul d be r e a s o n ab le to e x p e c t r e lo c a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) ( i) ; see a l so M az ar i egos v . O

f f i c e of U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng tha tthe pe t i t i one rm us ts how tha ts he c oul d nota voi d pe r s e c ut i on by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther partof her c ou ntryi f i tw as po ss i bl e) . T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A , the al i en m ustshow thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthat , i f s he re turned t o h ercoun try , her l i fe o r freed o m w o u l d b e th reat en ed b ecau se o f o n e o f th e fi v e co v ered g ro u n d s.7

Se pulv e da , 401 F . 3d a t1232. W he r e a n appl i c a ntf a i l s t o e s t abl i s h ac l a i m of a s y l u m o n th e m e r i t s , h e ro th e rc l a i m s f o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA g e n e r a lly f

a il. For gue , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 8 n .4 . H e r e , the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe I J pr ovi de d s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons f orf i ndi ng S a l da rr i a ganotc r e di bl e , s pe c i f i c a l l y l i s t i ng s e ve r a l f

a c e t s of S a l da rr i a ga ’ s s t ory tha tthe I J f ound i nc r e di bl e , a nd w hi c h w e r e s uppor t e d by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . T h u s , ar e a s o n ab le f a c tf in d e rw o u ld n o t b e c o m p e lle d to r e a c h ac o n c lu s io n d if

f e r e n t th a n th e I J . For

gue , 401 F . 3d a t1287. I n a ddi t i on, ev en i f S al d arri ag a w as cred i b l e, sh e w as n o tel i g i b l e fo r asyl u m b ecau se subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatS al darr i aga nei ther has suff er ed p a s t p e r s e c u tio n n o rh a s 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 b e c au s e , w h ile the event s thatS al darr i aga des cr i bed m ayhave been un pl ea sa nt , they a m ou ntm ore to is o la te d in c id e n ts o f

v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n , w h ic h is n o t p e r s e c u tio n . See Se pulv e da , 401 F . 3d a t1231. F ur the r , S a l da rr i a gac a nnote s t abl i s h af e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b e c au s e s h e h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility th a t s h e w ill s u f

f e rp e r s e c u tio n if

r e m o v e d to C o lo m b iao rth a t s h e c o u ld n o t a v o id p e r s e c u tio n b y r e lo c a tin g to a n o th e rp a r t o f th a t c o u n try . See 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) ( i ) . Be c au s e th e p e t i t i o n e r s f a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h ac l a i m o f a s y l u m, th ei r p et i t i o n fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al u n d er th e IN A al so fai l , as i treq u i res a m o r e s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d to b e s a tis f ie d . See For

gue , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 8 n .4 .8

F o rth e ab o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , we d e n y th e P e t i t i o n f o rR e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.