FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JULY 31, 2008 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. 07- 15995 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 98- 735- 014 & A 98- 135- 015 C E S A R A U G U S T O H E RN A N D E Z M O N C A D A , G I N A A S T R I D G U E V A R A A L F O N S 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 31, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C es arH ernand ez M on ca da and h i s w i fe G i na A l fonso, proceedi ng pro se,2

s e e k 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 ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a dopt i ng a nd a f f irm in g th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) r e m o v a l o r d e ra n dd e n ia l o f th e ir appl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA 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 on T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt (“ C A T ”) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 11 58 , 12 31 , 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c ). B ec au se th e B IA d idn o t ad o p t th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew o n ly th e B IA ’s d e c is io n in th is c a s e . N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 2 5 7 F .3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i ons de novo a nd the B I A ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. A de fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 386 F . 3d 1022, 1026- 27 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( e n ba nc ) . “ U nde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , w e vi e w the r e c o r d e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n a n dd r a w a ll re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of thatdeci si on . ” I d. at10 27 . T here fore , the fa ct tha te vi de nc e i n the r e c or d m a ys upportac onc l us i on c ontr a ryt o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f in d in g s is n o t e n o u g h to ju s tif yar e v e r s a l, r a th e r , r e v e r s a l is o n lyap p r o p r ia te w h e r e th e r e c o r d “c o m p e ls ” it. I d. I . A s y l u m an d W i t h h ol d i n g of R e m oval M onc a daa r gue s tha tthe B I A e rr e d w he n i tde ni e d hi s appl i c a t i ons f or asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al o n th e g ro u n dth ath e h ad n o tsu ffered p ast pe r s e c ut i on. M onc a dam us ts how tha tthe e vi de nc e “ w a s s o c om pe l l i ng tha tno3

re as on abl e f

ac t fi nd ercoul d fai l t o fi nd the re qu i si t e f ear of per se cut i on . ” IN

S v. E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 483- 84, 112 S . C t . 812, 817, 117 L . E d. 2d 38 ( 1 9 9 2 ) .

“ A l tho ug h the IN A do es no tdefi ne pers ec ut i on , w e have oft en re peat ed that pe r s e c ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n af e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n , a n dth a t m e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to pers ec ut i on . ” Sanc hez -J i m e nezv . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 49 2 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 07 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T he pet i t i on erdo es no t , ho w ever , need t o h ave s uffe re d ser i ou s physi ca l i nj ury w hen there ar e physi ca l threat s c om bi ned w ith o th e rf

o rm s o f m is tr e a tm e n t s u c h a s k id n ap p in g o ra tte m p te dm u r d e r . De Santam ar i a v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 52 5 F . 3d 99 9, 10 09 (11th C i r. 20 08 ). M oreover,

“ [i ] n d et erm i n i n g w h eth er an al i en h as su ffered p astp ersecu t i o n , th e [B IA ] m u st consi der the cum ul at i ve ef fe ct s of the [a l l egedl y per se cut ory] i nci dent s. ” D e l gado v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 4 8 7 F . 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (p er cu ri am ). A d d i t i o n al l y, w e “ m ayconsi der athrea t eni ng ac tagai nstanother a s e vi dence thatthe pet i t i on er suff er ed pers ec ut i on w here thatac tconcom i t ant l y threa t ens the pet i t i on er . ” De Sa n ta m a r ia , 525 F . 3d a t1009 n. 7. W e a r e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e th a t M o n c a d as u f f e r e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n in l i gh tof the cum ul at i ve ef fe ctof hi s e ncou nt er s w i th the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F or c e s of

C ol om bi a( “ F A R C ” ) . H e w a s r e pe a t e dl ythr e a t e ne d ove rthe c our s e of4

m ore than fou r y ears , chas ed by a vehi cl e c on t ai ni ng arm ed gu nm en w ho shotat h i m , a n d h i s b r o th e rwa s k i d n ap p e da n dp h y s i c a l l ym i s tr e a t e d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a s i tr e l a t e s t o the B I A ’ s de ni a l of M onc a da ’ s appl i c a t i ons f or asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al . B ecau se, h o w ev er, th e B IA d i dn o tad d ress wh e th e rth e r e wa s an e x u s b e twe e n th e p e r s e c u t i o n a n dap r o t e c t e dg r o u n d , we r e m a n d th e c a s e f

o rth e B I A to d e te rm in e w h e th e rM o n c a d ais n o w e n title dto re l i ef . II. C A T R el i ef M o n c a d ac o n te n d s th a t h e is e n title dto C A T r e lie f b e c au s e h e is s u b

je c t to be i ng t ortur e d bythe F A R C , a nd the C ol om bi a n gove rnm e nti s unabl e t o c ontr ol th e FA RC. T o b e e n title d to r e lie f

u n d e rC A T , a n ap p lic a n t m u s t e s tab lis h th a t it is

“ m ore l i kel y than n otthathe or she w ou l d b e t ortured i f r em ov ed t o the prop osed c o u n tryo f

r e m o v a l.” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T h e a lie n m u s t a ls o d e m o n s tr a te th at th e f ea re d to rtu re w o u ldb e b y th e g o v ern m en t o r w ith th e g o v ern m en t’ s a c q u ie s c e n c e , i.e ., th e g o v e rn m e n t is a w a r e o f m is c o n d u c t th a t it h a s ad u tyto p r e v e n t a n d f

a ils to in te rv e n e . Mor ale s v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 4 8 8 F .3 d8 8 4 , 8 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . M onc a dai s note nt i t l e d t o C A T r e l i e f . A f t e rthe pol i c e be c a m e a w a r e of M o n c a d a ’s tr o u b le w ith th e F A R C , it in v e s tig a te d , a d v is e dh im c o n c e rn in g h o w to5

prot ec thi s s af

ety, m on i t ored hi s t el epho ne, and d et erm i ned the ar eafr om w hi ch one of the t e l e phone thr e a t s a ga i ns tM onc a daha d or i gi na t e d. T he r e f or e , the C o lo m b ia n g o v e rn m e n t d idn o t a c q u ie s c e in th e F A R C ’s m is c o n d u c t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt s th e B I A’ s d e n i a l o f C AT r e l i e f

, a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n a s i tr e l a t e s t o th i s c l a i m. PETI TI O N G R A N TED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.