FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

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

N o. 05- 1235 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI A N o. A 79- 471- 198 MAR TH A C EC IL IA TO SCA NO -CA BRA LE S, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Pe tit ion f or Re vie w of

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I mmigr at ion A ppe al s

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

(M ay 1 8, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pe tit ion er Martha Ce ci lia T osc an o- Cabr al es , ana tiv e an d c iti ze n of Co lom bia pr oc ee din g pr o se , pe tit ion s th is C ourt f or r ev ie w of

theor de r of

thePetitioner’s husband and son wer e derivative applicants on her a sy lum petition. The petition for 1 re vie w n a m e s “ M ari a

C e c i l i a T o s c a n o C ab r a l e s e ta l . ” a s p e t i t i o n e r . F e d e r a l R u l e o f A p p e l la te Pr oc e du re15 re qu ir e s e a c h p e tition e r to be name d sp e c if ic a lly in the pe tition fo r re vie w. So, on ly Toscano is a proper petitioner. Reg ardle ss, a s we decide that Petitioner is entitled to no relief, her husband and son, a s derivative a pplicants, also would be e ntitled t o n o relief wer e they

proper pe tition e rs . 2 Bo ar d of I mmigr at ion A ppe al s ( “ BI A ”) , w hic h a ff ir m ed , w ith out

opi nio n, the d e c i s i o n o f

t h e i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ( “I J ” ) d e n yi n g h e r ap p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s yl u m, w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, a nd r el ie f unde r the U nit edN at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e (“ CA T ”) . W e dis miss he r pe tit ion in part a nd d en y it

part . 1 Ac cording to Petitio ner’ s application for asy lum and her testim ony before the IJ, the National L iberation Arm y (“ EL N” ) persec uted her based on her politi cal opin ion and h er mem

bership in th e Colom

bian Liberal P arty . Petitioner had been an a ct ivi st i n th e L ibe ra l P artysin ce 198 3. S he w as ac he mic al e ngi ne er w ho, in 1995 , j oin edE co pe tr ol, aCo lom bia n oi l c om

pa ny . I n 19 96, she f

or m eda co m pa ny that c onsu lte d w ith E co pe tr ol. O n 31 Jul y 199 9, P et iti one r co nduc te d ase mina r in B uc ar am an gaon en vir onmen ta l m atte rs , during w hic h sh e criti ci ze d gu er ri lla gr oups f or a tta cking the oil sup ply . A ft er

the se minar, she r etur ne d to af ri en d’ s ho use , w he re she rece ived a threatening pho ne call. T he caller asked for Pe tition er, identified him self as an E LNm em

ber, told her that she was “ pro-im perialist” and, stated that, because she condu cted confere nces “ that wer e full of BS ,” he w as giving her3

12 h our s to le av e Bu cara m an gaa nd t o di sappe ar . P et iti one r an d he r husb an d de ci de d to qui t the ir

j obs. O n 5 A ugus t 19 99, a ft er

P et iti one r ha d r etur ne d to he r home in Floridablanca, less than 2 ho urs from Bucara m anga, she discovered that three people had brok en into her hom e ear lier that day and had ransacked a desk. They too k no thi ng o f va lue . P et iti one r’ s hu sba nd f oundam es sa ge on the ba ck of the hous e fr om

the E L N r ea din g “ sni tc he s sh oul d be take n to tria l. ” A ne igh bor tol d Petitioner that these people had been loo king for her : they stated that they we re E co pe tr ol e m

plo y ee s w ho n ee de d to ta lk t o he r ab out ac ontra ct . O n 18 A ugus t, Pe tit ion er f le d to the U nit edS ta te s w ith he r husb an d a nd s on. Petitioner argues that she dem onstrated past persecution and a w ell-founded fe ar of pe rs ec uti on b as edon h er pol iti ca l op ini on a nd h er m em be rs hip in a particular social group: her acts w ith the Liberal P artyin hold ing seminars to deter gue rrill as f

ro m c ommitt ing “ irre spon sib le a ct s” that harmedthe e nvi ro nm en t. W e co nsi de r onl y P et iti one r’ s a sy lum c la im . S he a lso arg ue s th at she is entitled to withho lding of removal and to CAT relief . But she raised only her as y lum c la im to the BI A . P et iti one r ha s f ai le d to e xhaust

he r ad mini str at ive re m ed ie s f

or the w ith hol din g of

r em ova l a nd C A T c la im s. W e la ck j ur isd ic tio n to consider these claim s, and w e dismiss them . See 8 U. S. C. § 125 2(d)(1);“We review onl y the [ BIA’s] decision, except to the extent it ex pressly adopts the IJ ’s opinion.” 2 Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Ci r. 2001). In this case the B IA expressly adopted theIJ’s d e c isi on ; so were vie w theIJ’s ana ly sis a s if it w e retheB IA’ s. 4 Fernandez- Bernal v. U. S. AttorneyGe n., 257 F.3d 1304 , 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001 ). W e re view the BI A’ s and IJ’ s fac tual determination s under the sub stantial 2 ev id en ce t es t. Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d 12 62 , 12 83 -8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Un d ert h e h i g h l y d ef

er en t i al s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce t es t , we “ m u s taf fi rm th e B IA ’s de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d byr ea sonable , sub sta nti al , a nd p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the re co rdc onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” I d. a t 12 84 ( quot at ion omitt ed ). “ T o r ev er se the [B IA ’ s a nd] I J’ s f

ac t f ind ing s, w e m

ust f indthat the r ec or d no t on lysup ports re ve rs al , but

c om pe ls i t. ” Me ndoz a v. U . S. A tto rn eyG en . , 327 F . 3d 1 283, 128 7 (11th Cir. 2003) (em

phasis add ed). An alien m ay obtain asy lum if he is a “ refugee” : a person unwilling to return to h is c ountryof

na tio na lit y “ be cause of

pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of persecution on accountof,” am ong o ther things , political opinio n. 8 U .S .C. §§ 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ), 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T o e stabli sh a sy lum e lig ibi lity ba se d on pol iti ca l op ini on o r an oth er pr ote ct edgr ound , the a lie n m ust -- w ith c re dib le ev ide nc e- -e stabli sh ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n on a cc ount of he r pol iti ca l op ini on o r an oth er pr ote ct edgr ound , or

( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that he r pol iti ca l op ini on o r5

another protected ground will cause future persec ution . See Sepulveda v. U .S . AttorneyGe n., 401 F.3d 1226 , 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (c iting 8 C.F .R. § 208 .13(a) , ( b)). Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the de te rm ina tio n th at

P et iti one r fa ile d to show that sh e suf

fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n on a cc ount of he r m em be rs hip in the Liber al Party and her role in the environm ental seminars. Petitioner claim s that she suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n bythe E L N ba se d on ( 1) the pho ne c al l t el lin g he r to le av e the are a w he re she w as c ondu ct ing the se minars , a nd ( 2) thr ee pe rs ons br eakin g in to h er

hou se , r an sa cking he r de sk, a nd l ea vin g am es sa ge r ea din g

“ snitches sh ould be put on trial.” W e do not do ubt th at these events we re unpl easant. But persecution is “ an extreme concept, requiring m ore than a fe w iso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssmen t or

intimida tio n. ” S ep ulv ed a, 401 F. 3d 1 226, 123 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). T he pho ne c al l, br eak- in, and m essage do not rise to th e level of past persec ution that would com pel reversal of the I J’ s de te rm

ina tio n. I n a ddi tio n, the e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l a c onc lus ion that the persons targeted Petitioner because of her polit ical opinio n as a L iberal Partym em

ber. Petitioner, instead, appear s to have been targeted because of her co nc ern f or the e nvi ro nm en ta l da m ag e cause d bygue rrill a atta ck s on the oil in du st ry .6

A nd s ubst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the de te rm ina tio n th at

P et iti one r fa ile d to show aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of f utu re pe rs ec uti on. A s w e dis cu sse d above , the pho ne ca ll an d br eak- in d o no t rise to the le ve l of pe rs ec uti on. P et iti one r, a lso , ha s no t show n th at , upo n r etur n to Co lom bia , she w ill be “ sin gle d ou t” f or pe rs ec uti on o n account of her mem

bership in th e L iberal Party or her e nvironm ental beliefs. See Sepulveda, 401 F. 3d at 123 1-32. Pe tition er m ay have led environm ental seminars with an anti-guerrilla message in mid-1999 . But our review of the evidence does not ind ic at e tha t P et iti one r’ s r ep uta tio n a s a n e nvi ro nm en ta l a ct ivi st w oul d ou tla st he r fi ve -a nd- a- ha lf

-y ear ab se nc e fr om

Co lom bia . T he e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l a co nc lus ion that P et iti one r ha s aw el l- fo unde d f ear of f utu re pe rs ec uti on. PE TITION DISM ISSED IN P AR T, DEN IED IN PA RT.