FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 79 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -5 46 -8 16 JOSE EDGAR SANTA PIEDRAHITA, Pet it io ne r,

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st4, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON, an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Jo se Edg ar Sant a Pi edrah it a, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C ol om bi a pr oc eed in g p ro se, p et it io ns forrev ie w of the ord er b y th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io nApp eal s (“ BIA”) affi rm in g the de ci si on of t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”). The IJ’s de ci si on de ni edasylu m

an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een 1 sh own ; we d is m is s the pe ti ti on inpa rt a ndde ny it i n p art . On ap pe al , Pet it io ne r arg ue s tha t h e rec ei ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l dur in g h is asylu m pro ceed in gs . ButPet it io ne r ne ve r rai se d thi s cl ai m be fo re the BIA an d, the refo re, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er i t n ow. See Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . U.S. Atto rn ey Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 47 , 12 50 -5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng anis su e n otrai se d b efo re BI A is no t p ro pe rly exh au st edan d we la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er i t). We di sm is s the pe ti ti on on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. W e rev ie w th e IJ ’s andBIA’s de ci si on s i n thi s ca se be cau se th e BIA ag reed with the IJ’s re as on in g. Se e Kaze mzad ehv. U.S. Att orne y Gen., 5 77 F.3d13 41 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwhen th e BIA ag rees with afin di ng of t he IJ , we rev ie w bo th de ci si on s) . W e rev ie w leg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo . Id. An d we rev ie w factde te rm in at io ns un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al subs tant ia l ev id en ce te st ” whe reb y

we “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Ade fem i
Petitioner raises no c halleng e to the portion of I J ’s dec ision denying r elief unde r the 1 Convention Ag ainst Torture; so that issue is aba ndoned. See Sepulve da v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 2v. As hc ro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (enba nc ) (ci ta ti on an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e . . . deci si on an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t de ci si on ”; we m ay

rev ers e fac t d et erm in at io ns “ on ly whe n the reco rdco m pe ls a rev ers al .” Id . at 1 02 7. An al ie n m ay

ob ta in asylum

if h e is a “refu ge e,” tha t i s, a p ers on un ab le or un wil li ng to return t o h is co un try of n at io na li ty “be cau se of p ers ecu ti on or awell
fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f” a p ro te ct edgro un d, i nc lu di ng po li ti cal op in io n. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A); 11 58 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 ). The ap pl ic an t b ears th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng st atut ory “refu ge e” s ta tu s wi th sp eci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att orne y

Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Pet it io ne r al le ge d tha t the Co lo m bi anRev ol ut io na ry

Arm edFo rces (“ FARC” ) pe rs ecu te d h im an d h is fam il y

be cau se of t he ir p ol it ic al be li efs . After he an d h is ex -wif

e be gan h ol di ng m eet in gs inth ei r ho m e to supp ort the 2 pr es id en ti al cam

pa ig n o f Alv aro Urib e, he an d h is fam il y be ga n re cei vi ng th reat en in g p ho ne cal ls fro m th e FARC . The FARC to ldth em th atth e fam il y

was a “ m il it ary ob

jecti ve .” Inlat e 2 00 1, the FARC k idnapp edan d a tt ack ed
Although Petitioner r efe rre d to his companion as his ex-wife, Petitioner clarified in his 2 hearing te stimony

that the two neve r we re ma rried. 3Pet it io ne r’s ex -wif e; sh e rec ei ve d m in orin

juri es . She fle d t o the Uni te d S ta te s i n earl y 20 02 . In20 04 , Pet it io ne r’s so n, a m us ic ian wh o o fte n p erfo rm edat p ol it ic al ev en ts , als o was acco st edby the FARC af te r le av in g apo li ti cal m eet in g. Th e FARC h itan d k ic ke d h im an d a ga in to ldhi m

th athe an d h is pa ren ts were m il it ary ob jecti ve s. Th e FARC ab an do ne d P et it on er’s s on by the si de of t he roa d. Sh ortl y aft er thi s i nc id en t, the so n fl edto th e Uni te d S ta te s. Als o i n 2 00 4, Pe ti ti on er, a l awy er p ract ic in g c riminal law, was ap po in te d t o de fen d aFARC co m

m an de r kn own as “ Hug o.” FARC m em be rs , onm an y oc cas io ns , tri edto bri be Pet it io ne r in to arrang in g fo r th e co m m an de r’s rel eas e. Pet it io ne r refu se d; an d e ve ntua ll y , Pet it io ne r fl edto th e Uni te d S ta te s. The IJ d et erm in ed , inpe rti ne ntpa rt, tha t the ev en ts Pet it io ne r co m pl ai ne d o f di d n otris e to th e le ve l o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on . The IJ als o c on cl ud edth atPet it io ne r sh owe d n o o bjec ti ve well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . The BI A agr eed with the IJ’s re as on in g. Onap pe al , Pet it io ne r rep eat s the all eg at io ns form in g the ba si s o f hi s cl ai m

an d a rg ue s tha t h e sh owe d p as t p ers ecu ti on an d awell -fo un de d fearof f utur e p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n h is po li ti cal be li efs . Afte r rev ie w, we con cl ud e th atsubs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s and BIA’s d eci si on s tha t Pe ti ti on er d idno t d em on strat e p as t p ers ecu ti on ; an d we a re 4no t co m

pe ll edto rev ers e th e d eci si on . W e h av e ex pl ai ne d tha t p ers ecu ti on is an

“ ex 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 v erb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n, an d tha t m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ountto pe rs ecu ti on .” See S ep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (c it at io n a ndin te rn al qu ot at io ns om itte d) . The ev en ts Pet it io ne r an d h is fam il y ex pe rie nc ed-- in cl ud in g thr eat en in g ph on e cal ls , bei ng bri efl y de ta in edby the FARC, an d m in orph y si cal harm -- are in su ffi ci en tl y

ex tre m e to est ab li sh pe rs ecu ti on . See Djon dav. U.S. Att orne y Gen., 51 4 F .3d11 68 , 11 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (d eath thr eat s al on e d o n otco ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on no r do de ath thr eat s co up le d wi th min orph y si cal ha rm). Pet it io ne r hi m se lf n ev er was ph y si cal ly harm edor t hr eat en edinpe rs on by the FARC be cau se of h is po li ti cal act iv it ie s fo r Urib e’s cam pa ig n. An d h is co nt actwith the FARC i n d efen di ng th e FARC co m m an de r di d n otam ountto pe rs ecu ti on be cau se Pet it io ne r ne ve r al le ge d tha t h e was th reat en edor t ha t h e p hysic al ly w as ha rm ed ba se d o n h is ap po in tm en t t o re pr es en t the co m m an de r. 3 To s ho w a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , Pet it io ne r ha d t o es tabl is h tha t h is fearbo th was “ subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e.”
Be cause we c onclude that the e vents surroundingPetitioner’s appointment to defe nd the 3 commander

do not constitute persec ution, we nee d not consider whe ther this incident was ba sed on a prote cted ground. 5Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ [T]he o bjec ti ve

pr on g c anbe ful fil le d . . . by establ is hi ng . . . th athe . . . ha s a g oo d re as on to fear fu tu re p ers ecu ti on .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Peti ti on er h as sh own no su chgo odreas on . As the IJ andBIA n ot ed , Pet it io ne r tr av el edto th e Uni te d S ta te s an d returne d t o C ol om

bi a in20 03 , aft er re cei vi ng de ath thr eat s an d a fte r hi s ex -wif e ha d b eenab du ct edan d b eat en . See De San ta m ari a v . U.S. Atto rn ey Gen., 5 25 F.3 d 9 99 , 10 11 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [a]n as y lu m ap pl ic an t’s vo lu nt ary return t o h is or h er h om e co un try is arel ev an t co ns id erat io n i n de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e as y lu m ap pl ic an t h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on ”). Pet it io ne r al so tes ti fie d tha t h e st op pe d re cei vi ng th reat en in g p ho ne cal ls in20 02 . AndPet it io ne r ha s fa m il y m em be rs li vi ng inCo lo m

bi a unh arm ed . See Rui z v . U.S. Atto rn ey Gen., 4 40 F.3d12 47 , 12 59 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (an ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m edfear

of f utur e p ers ecu ti onis un de rcu t b y hi s t es ti m on y

th at fam il y m em be rs have rem ai ne d unh arm edinth e reg io n) . Peti ti on er’s ref us al to de fen d the FARC co m

m an de r do es no t g iv e ri se to anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e fea r of futur e p ers ecu ti on : an ot he r la wy er was ap po in te d t o the cas e aft er Pe ti ti on er fle d t o the Uni te d S ta te s, s ig ni fic an t t im e h as pa ss edsi nc e th is in ci de nt , and no th in g i nd ic at es th atth e FARC st il l i s i nt eres te d i n P et it io ne r. 6Subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s de ci si on s tha t Pe ti ti on er

was un en ti tl edto asylu m ; an d we a re n otco m pe ll edto rev ers e th e d eci si on s. Pet it io ne r’s fai lu re t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m for ecl os es hi s el ig ib il ity

for withh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Fo rg ue , 40 1 a t 1 28 8 n .4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . 4 PETITION DISMIS SED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

On appe al, Petitioner supports his claims with evidence about a f riend a nd colleague 4 who belong ed to the same political movement as he did a nd who was kidna

pped, torture d, and killed by the FA RC in 2009. But this evidence wa s not part of the a dministrative r ecord below, and we cannot c onsider it now. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1) ( in review ing a final orde r of r emoval, court may not order taking of

additional evidenc e); Al Na jjar, 257 F .3d at 1278 (a s review ing court, we “ca

nnot eng ag e in fa ct-findingon appea l, nor may we we igh e vidence that was not previously

considere d below”) . 7