FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 19, 2007 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. 06- 13816 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 453- 883 R O D R I G O A L B E R T O B A R R E R A C A S T R I L L O N , P e titio n e r , 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 19, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P e t i t i one rR odr i go A l be rt o B a rr e r aC a s tr i l l on, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n ofP e ti ti o n er al s o a pp l i e d f o r re l i e f un d er th eU . N . C o nv enti o nA g ain s tT o rture . Th eIJ 1 and B oard of

Immigration Appeals’s denial of such relief is not pre sented a s an issue by the ins tant p e tition

fo r review, and

wethu s do n ot discus s it . Petitioner labeled his motion to reopen a s a motion to remand. We treat it as a motion 2 to reopen beca

use that labe l refle cts the re lief he sought, i.e., the IJ ’s consideration of evidence not previously

presented. See Na

jjar, 257 F .3d at 1283-84.

2 C ol om bi a, S . A . , att em pt ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es atthe M i am i Int ernat i on al A i rporton June 22 , 20 02 , by pres ent i ng a f al se C ol om bi an pass po rt , and w as t aken in to c u s to d y b y th e im m ig r a tio n au th o r itie s . H e w a s p r o m p tly c h a r g e d w ith rem o v ab i l i ty u n d er th e Im m i g rat i o n an d N at i o n al i ty A ct(IN A ), an d o n F eb ru ary 7 , 2 0 0 3 , ap p e a r e d w ith c o u n s e l b e f o r e a n I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ( I J ) a n d c o n c e d e d h is r e m ovabi l i ty . P e t i t i one rs oughtt o a voi d be i ng r e m ove d t o C ol om bi aby appl y i ng f o ra s y l u m a n d wi 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 . 1 O n O c t obe r14, 2004, the I J c ons i de r e d hi s appl i c a t i on. A f t e rhe a r i ng t e s t i m ony a nd c ons i de r i ng the doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d, the I J de ni e d the appl i c a t i on a nd or de r e d P e t i t i one r ’ s r e m ova l . O n J une 12, 2006, the B oa r d of I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) d is m is s e d P e titio n e r ’s ap p e a l a n d d e n ie d h is m o tio n to r e ope n the c a s e f

orf urthe rc ons i de r a t i on of

hi s a s y l um c l a i m . T he i ns t a ntpe t i t i on 2 f o rr e v ie w f

o llo w e d . O urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o a n e xa m i na t i on of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d on w hi c h the r e m ova l or de ri s ba s e d. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n to th e e x te n t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly3

adop t s the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng s or otherw i se i ncorpo ra t es them i nt o i t s dec i si on . Id. H er e the B IA i ss ued i t s dec i si on pu rs uantt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(d)(3)(I ), w hi ch prov i des thatthe B IA m ayno tengage i n a de no vo re vi ew of the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac t ; ra ther, it r e v ie w s th e m to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e y a r e c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . W h e r e , a s h e r e , a ca se turns pri m ar i l y on fac tual i ss ues s ubj ec tt o o ur re vi ew for s ub st ant i al evi dence, w e l oo k t o the IJ ’ s dec i si on because the B IA di d n ot , and cou l d n ot , ac t a s ade novo f

a c tf i nde r . W i th r e s pe c tt o the de ni a l of P e t i t i one r ’ s appl i c a t i on f or a s y lu m , w e lo o kto b o th th e B I A ’s a n d th e I J ’s d e c is io n f o rth e a g e n c y ’s a n a ly s is . In re v iew in g th e d en ial o f P etit io n er ’s m o ti o n to re o p en , w e lo o ko n ly to th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( ii) . T h e d e n ia l o f

a n a lie n ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m m u s t b e u p h e ld if it is s upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . S e e M a z a r i e gos v. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . U nde rthi s hi ghl y de f e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of r e v ie w , ad e n ia l o f

a s y lu m m a y b e r e v e r s e d o n ly if th e e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a s onabl e f

a c tf i nde rt o f i nd tha tthe r e qui s i t e f

e arof pe r s e c ut i on e xi s t s . I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S . C t . 812, 815 n. 1, 117 L . E d. 2d 38 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . A n 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 . S ee IN A § 2 08 (a )( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (1). T he A tt orney G ener al has di sc re t i on t o g rantas yl um i f the al i en m ee t s the IN A ’ s def i ni t i on of a “ re fugee. ”4

S ee IN A § 2 08 (b)( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(1). A “r e f u g e e ” is : any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l o p in io n . . . . 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntc a rr i e s the bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tu to ry “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . S e e A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 . A n a lie n is e n title d to a s y lu m if h e c a n e s tab lis h , w ith s p e c if ic a n d c r e d ib le evi dence: (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof hi s m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, po l i t i ca l op i ni on , or other s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” thathi s m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, po l i t i ca l op i ni on , or other s t a tu t o r i l y l i s t e d f

a c t o rwi l l c au s e f

u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( a ) , ( b ) ; Al N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. T he t e rm “ pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup” i s nota“ c a t c h a l l ” f or a l l pe r s ons a l l e gi ng pe r s e c ut i on w ho do notf i te l s e w he r e , a nd w e de f e rt o the B IA ’ s d efi n i t i o n o f a p art i cu l ar so ci al g ro u p , w h i ch st at es th ati ti s o n e th atsh ares a c om m on, i m m ut abl e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c . C a s t i l l o- A r i a s v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 446 F . 3d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 8 ( 1 1 Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , p e t i t i o n f o rc e r t . f i l e d , ( N o . 0 6 - 6 4 2 ) ( U . S. th N ov . 1, 20 06 ).Th eIJ found Pe tition er’ s te stimony

no t cre dib lein m any

re sp e c ts. Th eB IA f

ound it 3 unn e c e s s ar

y t o addre s s th i s adv er s ec re dib i l i ty f in din gb e c a

u s e , ev eni f

P e ti ti o n er ’ s t e s ti m o ny was credible, theIJdid not err in conc luding that Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of prov inge ligibi lity

fo r a sylum

and withholdingof

remov al. 5 I f th e a lie n d e m o n s tr a te s p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , h e is p r e s u m e d to h a v e aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on unl e s s the gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthe p resu m p t i o n . 8 C . F . R § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b )(1 ). If, h o w ev er, th e al i en d o es n o test ab l i sh pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, he be a r s the bur de n of s how 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 tha t : ( 1) he f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on hi s m e m be r s hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, po l i t i ca l op i ni on , or other s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or; (2) there i s ar e a s onabl e pos s i bi l i ty he w i l l s uf f e rpe r s e c ut i on i f

r e m ove d t o hi s na t i ve c o u n try ; a n d ( 3 ) 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 h is or her c ou ntry , i f und eral l the ci rc um st ance s i tw ou l d b e r ea sonabl e t o exp ec t re l ocat i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2), (3)( I) . A n al i en’ s c l ai m of w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n w ill b e u n d e rm in e d if h is c lo s e r e la tiv e s r e m a in u n h ar m ed in th e r eg io n in w h ich th e a li en w as th re aten ed . S ee R u iz v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . “P e r s e c u tio n is a n e x tr e m e c o n c e p t, th r e q u ir in g m o r e th a n af

e w 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 . .

. . ” S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A tho roug h revi ew of the re cord conv i nces us thatsubst ant i al evi dence su p p o rt s th e fi n d i n g th atP et i t i o n er fai l ed t o sh o w p astp ersecu t i o n . T h i s i s a case 36

wh e r e ap a r a m i l i t a ry o r g a n i z a t i o n , th e AU C , a tt e m p t e d t o s h a k e P e t i t i o n e rd o wn f orm one y . H i s c ont a c tw i th m e m be r s of the A U C be ga n w he n the y boa r de d abus a n d to o kh is a n d th e o th e rp a s s e n g e r s ’ m o n e y a n d id e n tif y in g d o c u m e n ts . H e d id no tfi l e apo l i ce re po rtbecause w hen h e w entt o the po l i ce st at i on , he di sc ov er ed thaton e of tho se w ho bo ar ded the bu s, and w ho appeare d t o rec og ni ze P et i t i on er , w a s w o rk in g th e r e . A f

te rth a t, h e s ta r te d r e c e iv in g p a m p h le ts th r e a te n in g to k ill h im if h e d id n o t le a v e th e c o u n try . H e w e n t in to h id in g a n d e v e n tu a lly c a m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s . A s the B I A f

ound, P e t i t i one rf

a i l e d t o s how tha the w a s t a r ge t e d on a c c ount of hi s pe r c e i ve d pol i t i c a l opi ni on orm e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, a nd th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n ab le o ru n w illin g to p r o te c t h im . M o r e o v e r , h e f a ile d to de m ons tr a t e aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on i n tha the pr e s e nt e d no evi dence thatanyone w ou l d h arm hi m i f he r eturned t o C ol om bi a or, i f harm a w a i t e d hi m a thi s hom e t ow n, tha the c oul d nots a f e l y l oc a t e i n a nothe rpa r tof the c ountry . I n s hort , the thr e a t s he de s c r i be d di d notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on. S e e S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, t1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he s hoot i ng he de s c r i be d r e s ul t e d i n no phy s i c a l ha rm t o hi s pe r s on. I n s um , w e f

i nd no ba s i s f

ors e tt i ng a s i de the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ngAs noted supra , the ag ency denied Petitioner’s a

pplication for withholdingof removal 4 under theI

NA. Petitioner’s brie f to this court raise s no argument challenging theag ency ’s denial of withholding of removal. We consider the issue w aived. United States v. N ealy, 232 F.3d 825, 830- 31 (11th Cir. 2000). 7 Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. 4 W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng P e t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n f or abuse of di sc re t i on . M ej i a R od ri gu ez v. R eno, 17 8 F . 3d 11 39 , 11 45 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) . “A m o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s s h a ll n o t b e g r a n te d u n le s s it ap p e a r s to th e B o a r d th a t th e e v id e n c e s o u g h t to b e o f f e r e d is m a te r ia l a n d w a s n o t a v a ilab le a n d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n te d a t th e f o rm a l h e a r in g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) . T h e e v id e n c e P e titio n e rc ite d in h is m o tio n to r e o p e n w a s k n o w n to P et i t i on erand p l ai nl y a vai l abl e a tthe t i m e of the form al hear i ng . T he B IA the r e f or e c om m i tt e d no abus e of di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.