1

I M G- 2 7 0 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. 09- 4191

___________ N A N C Y H E R R E R A ; H E RN A N D O V IL L E G A S ;

ESTE FA N I A V I LLE G A S, 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 o. A 095- 870- 173/ 174/ 175) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t4, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (fil ed : A u g u st 20 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

L ead pe t i t i onerN ancyH err er a, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derbythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i rm i ng anH errera ’s hu sb an dan dd au g h ter, H ern an d o an dE stefa n ia V il lega s, resp ec ti v ely , are 1 al s o ci t i zens of C ol om bi a and ar e i ncl uded i n herappl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng o f re m o v a l. 2 im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h e r ap p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng 1 re a s o n s , th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .

I. H err er a’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on u n d e r th e C A T a re p re d ica ted o n h e r c laim th a t sh e w a s th re a ten e db yg u e rillas in C ol om bi a on ac countof heri nvol vementw i th the “Part i do C ons ervat i vo” ( the C o n s e rv a tiv e P a rty ) i n C o lo m b ia a n dh a s a w e ll- f o u n d e df e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d . She t es t i fi ed thatas an ac t i ve partym embers he s pentt i m e handi ng outfood, cl othi ng, an db o o k s in ru ral co m m u n it ies, an drec ruit ing n ew m em b ers to the p arty . (A R 1 5 6 . ) A r ound M ay2000, H err er a s t art ed r ece i vi ng thr eat eni ng phone ca l l s fr om anonym ous s our ces s he bel i eved t o be guer i l l as , caus i ng hert o qui therpartyact i vi t i es . ( A R 157- 58, 177. ) I n N ovember2000, s he r ece i ved a “ s ufr agi o” – a w r i tt en dea th thr eats t at i ng that h er “ turn ” w as c o m ing . (A R 1 5 8 . ) In M arc h 2 0 0 1 sh e re ce ived an o ther thre at i n the f o rm of a T arotcard dep i ct i ng death l efton her desk. (A R 16 0. ) I n A ug ust20 01 , her purse w as s t ol en fr om heroffi ce. H err er a t es t i fi ed thati ni t i al l ys he thoughtthi s w as a comm on c rim e a n dre p o rte dit t o p o lice , b u t b e c a m e c o n v in c e dth a t g u e rillas w e re re sp o n sib le w hen s he l at err ece i ved an anonym ous phone ca l l i n w hi ch the s peake rt ol d hertheyhad3

al l of heri dent i fi cat i on and had he r“i n [thei r ] hands . ” ( A R 161. ) D ur i ng thi s per i od H err er a bec ame i ncr eas i ngl ydi s tr aughtand depr es s ed, exper i ence d vagi nal h e m o rrh a g in g , a n dw a s u ltim a te ly h o s p ita liz e dto h a v e a c y s t r e m o v e df ro m h e r u te ru s . (A R 1 6 1 .) S h e a ttribu ted th is e p iso d e to stre ss a n df e a r f ro m th e th re a ts a n dd e c id e dto flee to the U n it ed S tat es. (A R 1 6 2 . )

T he I Jdeni ed r el i ef on the gr ounds thatH err er a’ s t es t i m onyw as not cre d ible an dthat sh e d id n o t m ee t her b u rde n o f p rov ing p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. T he B I A di s m i s s ed H err er a’ s appea l w i thout addr es s i ng the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, concludi ng thatH err er a had f ai l ed to e sta b lish e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m o n th e m e rits. T h e B IA a lso c o n c lu d e dth a t H e rre ra d id notcarryherbur den of pr ovi ng herent i t l ementt o w i thhol di ng of r emoval , orr el i ef unde r C A T . T h is ap p e a l f

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

re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . B ecaus e the B I A i s s ued i t s ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan that of the IJ. S ee L i v. A tt ' yG en. , 40 0 F . 3d 15 7, 16 2 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). H ow ever, w e al so loo kto the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ to the ex tent that the B IA d ef ers to o r ad o p ts th e IJ’s rea so n ing . S ee C h av arria v. G o n za lez, 44 6 F . 3 d5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e B IA ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and mustbe tr eat ed as “conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o conclude t o the contr ary . ” Si oe4

T j en W ong v. A tt ' yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed) . T he B IA ’s co n clus ion s o f law are su b ject t o p lena ryrev iew . S ee id. at2 3 1 . B IA d eterm ination s as to w h ethe r th e b u rde n o f p roo f w as m et w il l be u p h eld if th eyare s upport ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w h o le. IN S v . E lias -Z a c a ria s, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h e C o u rt w illre v e rse o n lyif th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it. G u o v . A sh c ro f t, 38 6 F . 3d 55 6, 56 1 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). In r eview i ng the B IA ’s decis i on , this C ou rtm ust a ss u m e H e rre ra ’s c re d ib ili tyb e c a u se th e B IA n e ith e r a d o p ted th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on norm ade one of i t s ow n. See K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F. 3d 231, 234- 35 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III .

T h e B IA a g re e dw ith th e IJ th a t th e re c o rd w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. T he evi dence i n thi s cas e does notcompel a contr aryconclus i on. T he B IA e x p lain e dth a t b e c a u se H e rre ra w a s n e v e r p h y sic a llyth re a ten e do r h a rm e dw h ile in C ol om bi a, and had r ece i ved no s peci fi c thr eatof harm i f s he r eturned, s he fa i l ed t o m eet h e r b u rd e n o f

e s ta b lis h in g p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r a w e ll- f o u n d e df e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . T hi s conclus i on i s “gr ounded i n the r ecor d” and c ons i s t entw i th cas es hol di ng thatas y l um m aybe deni ed w her e thr eat s “fa i l ed t o r es ul ti n anyphy s i calvi ol ence orharm t o the a l i e n . ” C h a v a rr i a v . G o n z a l e z , 4 4 6 F . 3 d5 0 8 , 5 1 5 ( 3 dC i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; s e e a l s o L i v . A tt 'yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “unful fi l l ed thr eat s ” of phy s i calm i s tr eatm entnot

co n cre te or im m inen t eno u g h to co n sti tute p ast p erse cu ti o n ). M o reo v er, al tho u g h H errera b e liev e dth e th re a ts w e re f ro m g u e rillas , sh e w a s n o t ab le to e sta b lish w h o th e th re a ts w e re f ro m , an dth u s th a t th e yc a m e f ro m a n in d iv idu a l th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t o f C o lo m b ia w as “ u n ab le or u n w il li n g to co n tr o l. ” M y at T h u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 0 F . 3 d4 0 5 , 4 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an dcit ati o n s o m itted). T h e B IA also n o ted th at H errera re tu rn e dto C o lo m b ia f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s o n tw o o c c a sio n s a f terth e th re a ts b e g a n in 2 0 0 0 . G iv e n th a t tes tim o n y , the B IA d idn o t err in c o n c lu d in g th a t H e rre ra f a iled to es t abl i s h a r eas onabl e fe arof futur e harm i n C ol om bi a. See J ean v. G onzal ez, 461 F. 3d 8 7 , 9 1 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ P e tit io n e r’s ] w ill in g n e ss to re tu rn v o lu n tar ilyto H a iti o n m u ltip le o c c a sio n s u n d e rm in e s th e c o n ten tio n th a t Je a n e x p e rie n c e dp e rse c u tio n a n dh a s a w e llf o u n d e df e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n th e re .” ). I V. B ecaus e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s upport ed the B I A ’ s deci s i on t o deny H err er a’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , i tfol l ow s thatthe deni al of herappl i cat i on for w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l w a s a lso su p p o rte db ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .



### 5