FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 03 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -6 85 -2 81 CARLOS ALBERTO GONZAL EZ LOPEZ , LAURA SOFIA GONZAL EZ BENAVIDES, SANTIAGO ANDRES GON ZALEZ BENAVIDES, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Carl os Alb ert o Go nz al ez Lo pe z (“ Lop ez”) see ks rev ie w of the Bo ardofIm

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act (“ INA”). Lop ez, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Co lo m bi a, cl ai m edhe was p ers ecu te d b y th e Rev ol ut io na ry

Arm edFo rces of Co lo m bi a (“ FARC” ) be cau se of h is act iv it ie s co nduc ti ng work sh op s fo r th e p oo r. Afte r rev ie w, we den y

Lop ez’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. 1

I. DI SCUSSI ON To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m , an app li can t m us t s ho w eit he r pa st pe rs ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on onacco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. INA § 1 01 (a)( 42 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A); Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3 d 1 22 6, 1 23 0- 31 (11 thCir . 20 05 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b ). Sim il arl y , to sh ow el ig ib il ity forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, anap pl ic an t m us t s ho w th at itis m or e li ke ly than n otth athe ha s b eenor wi ll be pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f on e of th e fi ve pro te ct edgro un ds . INA § 2 41 (b )(3 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 ); S ep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2. Be cau se th is st an da rdis m or e st rin ge ntth atth e st an da rdfor

L opez’s minor children, L aura and Santiag o Gonzalez, were included on L opez’s 1 application as de rivative be nefic iaries. While our opinion ref ers to L opez, our holding a s to his asylum claim applies equa lly to his children. In contra st, “there are no derivative benef its associate d with a grant of w ithholding of re moval,” De lga do v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F .3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007), and thus we deny his children’s withholdingof re moval claim on that basis. 2as y lu m , an a li enwho fai ls to est ab li sh asylu m eli gi bi li ty gen eral ly cann otsat is fy th e h ig he r bu rd enforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2- 33
. Altho ug h t he INA do es no t d efi ne pe rs ecu ti on , th is Co urt h as reco gn iz ed th atitis “ anex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of
ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n.” Id. at12 31 (qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d)
. Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt h as co nc lu de d t ha t thr eat s i n c on jun ct io n wi th bri ef de te nt io ns or am in or

ph y si cal att ackth atdo es no t re su ltinser io us ph y si cal in jury do no t ri se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . See, e.g ., Kazemzad ehv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 52 -5 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (arre st , in te rro ga ti on , fiv e-h ou r be at in g, fo ur -d ay de te nt io n, an d m on it or in g b y au th or it ie s af

te r rel eas e); Djond a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 14 F.3d11 68 , 11 71 -7 2, 1 17 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (36 -h ou r de te nt io n, be at in g a ndth reatof a rres t); Zhen g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 51 F.3d12 87 , 12 90 -9 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (fi ve -d ay de te nt io n)
. II . LOPEZ ’S PETI TI ON As t o Lo pe z’s pe ti ti on , th e BIA d idno t ad op t the IJ’s d eci si on , andth us we
rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . See Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ W e rev ie w on ly the [BIA’s] deci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atit
ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n.” ). W e rev ie w th e fac tu al de te rm in at io n t ha t an al ie n i s s ta tu to ril y

in el ig ib le forasylu m

un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al ” subs ta nt ia l
3ev id en ce t es t, wh ic h re qu ire s tha t we af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s “ supp orte d by reaso nabl e, subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Id . at 1 28 3- 84 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . There fo re, we rev ers e “ on ly whe n the reco rdco m

pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f actth atth e rec or d m ay

supp ort a
co nt rary con cl us io n i s n oten ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of t he adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” M eh m et i v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 72 F.3d11 96 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Here, we ca nn otsay the ev id en ce co m pe ls a co nc lu si on th atLop ez s uf fere d pa stpe rs ecu ti on . Acco rd in g t o Lo pe z, in Marc h a ndApri l 2 00 6, wh il e 2
co nduc ti ng m on th ly w orks ho ps ina rural area , Lop ez h adface -to -fac e en co un te rs with m em

be rs of the FARC. Eachti m e, Lop ez was to ldto st op co nduc ti ng hi s
works ho ps . In l at e Apr il 20 06 , aft er co nduc ti ng an othe r works ho p, Lo pe z fo un d gr affi ti on hi s ca r an d t he let te rs “ FARC.” In M ay 20 06 , Lop ez re cei ve d h is fir st of eig htth reat en in g p ho ne cal ls . In J un e 2 00 6, the FARC s to pp eda truc k i n wh ic h Lop ez was rid in g. A FARC lea de r as ke d Lo pe z if hi s m es sa ge ha d b eencle ar o r if Lop ez wan te d t o fa ce the co ns eque nc es of h is act io ns . Lop ez was th enall owe d t o le av e unh arm ed
.

L opez alternatively

argues that the I J err ed in conc luding that L opez failed to show a 2 nexus between the F ARC’s mistreatment and his imputed polit ical opinion. Howeve r, the B IA’s decision did not rea ch this issue, and our r eview is limited to the BIA’s dec ision. Thus, we do not addre ss L opez’s nexus argument. 4InOcto be r 20 06 , th e FARC ag ai n s to pp edLop ez’s v eh ic le . This ti m e, on e

of th e FARC m em

be rs be atLop ez. Aft erwar d, Lo pe z wen t t o ane arb y cli ni c fo r fir staid . A m ed ic al reco rdsh owe d t ha t Lo pe z su st ai ne d ali gh t fa ci al traum a. Lop ez d idno t h av e an y

bro ke n b on es , was d is ch arg edaft er two h ou rs an d d idno t
se ekan y ot he r m ed ic al tre atm en t. InDecem be r 20 06 , th e m ot he r of

Lop ez’s ch il dr enrece iv eda ph on e cal l th reat en in g Lo pe z’s li fe. InJan ua ry 20 07 , sh e rec ei ve d a n e nv el op e co nt ai ni ng a ph ot og rap h o f Lop ez’s d au gh te r. On the ba ck , a m es sa ge warn edLop ez h e n eed ed to ge t o utof t he way

if h e wan te d t o c on ti nu e se ei ng hi s d au gh te r. The ha rm Lop ez al le ge d—th reat s, two b rie f ro ad si de de te nt io ns an d o ne al te rcat io n t ha t d idno t re su ltinser io us in jury—fal l s ho rt o f th e ex tre m e
m is tre atm en t fo un d i n o th er ca se s wh ere t hi s C ourt wa s co m pe ll edto co nc lu de th atth e p et it io ne r was pe rs ecu te d. Se e, e.g ., De San ta m ari a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 52 5 F .3d99 9, 1 00 8- 10 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (i nv ol vi ng rep eat edde ath t hr eat s, t ortu re
an d m ur de r of pe ti ti on er’s g ro un ds ke ep er, as saul t re su lt in g i n h os pi ta li zat io n, ki dn ap pi ng an d b eat in g wi thguns res ul ti ng inho sp it al iz at io n) ; Ni fta li ev v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 04 F.3d12 11 , 12 15 -1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (in vo lv in g t hr eat s, num ero us in te rro ga ti on s an d b eat in gs durin g a15 -d ay de te nt io n t ha t re su lt edintwo -m on th ho sp it al iz at io n, an d t wo s ub se qu en t p hysic al att ack s af te r pe ti ti on er fl edto
5Arg en ti na ); M ejia v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 98 F.3d12 53 , 12 57 -5 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (in vo lv in g wri tt enth reat s an d “ co nd ol en ce” l et te r, as saul t wi th a ro ckan d de te nt io n a t g unpo in t, dur in g wh ic h p et it io ne r was th ro wn t o t he gro un d a ndhi t with agu n, b reak in g h is no se an d re qu iri ng su rg ery); San ch ez J im en ez v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 92 F.3d12 23 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nv ol vi ng att em pt edm ur de r of pe ti ti on er, at te m

pt edki dn ap pi ng of h is daug ht er an d d eath t hr eat s)
. 3 Acco rd in gl y , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Lop ez d idno t d em on st rat e st atut ory eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m

or wi th ho ld in g o f
rem ov al
. 4 PETI TI ON DENI ED.

Be cause we c onclude that substantial evide nce suppor ts the BI A’s dete rmination that the 3 incidents L opez suffer ed did not constitute perse cution, we do not addr ess the B IA’s alter native rulingthat L opez failed to pre sent sufficie nt corrobor ative evide nce to support his per secution claim. Although L opez’s application also a lleg ed that he ha d a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution, his brief in this Court makes only passingref

ere nces to futur e per secution and doe s not offer any substantive argument as to whethe r the de nial of his future pe rsec ution claim was err or. Ac cording ly , we ha ve addr essed only

the denial of

L opez’s past perse cution claim. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (e x plaining that when a petitioner fa ils to offer a

rgument on an issue or makes only passingref

ere nces to it, the brief

is insufficient to ra ise a c laim and the issue is aba ndoned). On appe al, L opez does not challeng e the de nial of his claim for relief unde r the 4 Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Thus, L opez has aba ndoned his CAT claim. See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). 6