2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-11-2010 

# Fredy H ora c io P o s a d a-M ar t ine z v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1102

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F r e dy H or a c io P os a d a -M ar t inez v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1739. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1739NOT 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- 1102

___________ FREDY HO RA CI O PO SAD A- M AR TI NEZ, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 098- 659- 256) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

M ar ch 10, 2010 B e f o re : M C K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Fr edyH or aci o Posa da- M art i nez pe t i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) . Forthe r eas ons bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew a n d re m a n d th e m a tter to th e B IA to a d d re ss P o sa d a -M a rtin e z ’s m o tio n to re m a n d w ith2

resp ec t t o h is cl aim u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). Posa da- M art i nez, a nat i ve of Col om bi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n D ece m ber 2 0 0 5 . He wa s c h a r g e d a s r e mo v a b l e a s a n a l i e n wi th o u tv a l i d e n tryd o c u me n t s . He conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng, and C A T r el i ef. H e ar gued thathe had be en thr eat ened i n C ol om bi a bythe guerr i l l as of the R evol ut i onaryA r m ed For ces of C ol om bi a ( FA R C ) on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on and hi s m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. A ft era hea r i ng, the I J found Posa da- M art i nez c r edi bl e butdeni ed re lief. P o sa d a -M a rtin e z a p p e a led to th e B IA a n d f iled a m o tio n to re m a n d b a se d o n h is br other ’ s m ur deri n C ol om bi a. T h e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. Itc o n c lu d e d th a t th e th re a ts a n d p h y sic a l as sa u lt P o sa d a -M a rtin e z e x p e rie n c e d in th e p a st w e re n o t se v e re e n o u g h to c o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n . T h e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e g u e rillas w e re o n ly i nt er es t ed i n Posa da- M art i nez’ s m oneyw as notcl ear l yerr oneous . T he B I A r ej ect ed Posa da- M art i nez’ s ar gum entthathe w as t ar get ed bythe guerr i l l as beca us e he w as a uni on l eade rorbas ed on an a ctual ori m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. T he B I A deni ed P o sad a-M arti n ez ’s m o ti o n to rem an d b ase d o n h is bro ther’s m u rde r i n C o lom b ia. It det erm i ned thatthe murde rdi d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on and thatPosa da- M art i nez w as unabl e t o s how thatone ce ntr al r eas on forhi s br other ’ s death w as on acc ountof a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d . P o s a d a - M a r t i n e z f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyfor3

as y l um , Posa da- M art i nez mustdemonstr at e ei therpas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . See Vent e v. G onz al es , 4 1 5 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2005) . H e nee ds t o s how thatthe pr ot ect ed gr ound w as orw i l l be atl eas tone ce ntr al r eas on forthe per s ecut i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . Forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , he m u st d e m o n stra te th a t itw a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h is lif e w o u ld b e th re a ten e d in C o lo m b ia o n a c c o u n t o f o n e o f th e s e p ro te c te d g ro u n d s . T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T o be el i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of re m o v a l u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re , P o sa d a -M a rtin e z n e e d s to sh o w th a t itis mo r e l i k e l yth a n n o tth a th e wo u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e mo v e d t o Co l o mb i a . 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s ta n d a rd . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )(en b an c). T h e B IA ’s fi ndi ngs ar e cons i der ed conc l us i ve unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . W e exe r ci s e de novo re v ie w o v e r t h e B IA ’s le g a l d e c is io n s . Touss ai ntv. A t t or ney G ener al , 455 F. 3d 409, 413 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A t his he aring , P o sad a-M arti n ez test ifi ed that h e h ad w o rke d o n h is fam il y ’s fa rm and had be en the pr es i dentof a c om m uni tygr oup cal l ed the U ni on forC om m uni tyA ct i on (U n io n ). A .R . at 1 2 9 . H e sta ted th a t h is f irst d ire c t en c o u n ter w ith th e g u e rillas w a s in4

A ugus t2004. T he guer i l l as w er e fr i endl y , as ked hi m how thi ngs w er e on the fa r m and at the U ni on, and s t at ed thattheyw ant ed an e conomi c orfi nanci al col l abor at i on. A . R . at 134. Posa da- M art i nez be l i eved thei rr eques tw as ext or t i on butdi d nott ake i ts er i ous l yor p a yth e m a n ym o n e y . H e tes tifie d th a t d u rin g a su b se q u e n t en c o u n ter th e g u e rillas to ld hi m i f he di d notpay , theyw oul d harm hi m and hi s fami l y . T he guer i l l as as ked for appr oxi m at el y$50, 000. A . R . at135. Posa da- M art i nez be l i eved thatthe guer i l l as thought h e h ad ac ce ss to m o n eyb ec au se th e f arm w as g o ing w ell an d h e h ad ac ce ss to the U n ion ’s m o n e y . H e sta ted th a t d u rin g th e m o st h o stile e n c o u n ter h e w a s h it o n th e sh o u ld e rs w ith th e b a c k o f

a g u n . A .R . at 1 3 6 . P o sa d a -M a rtin e z h a d n o c o n tac t w ith th e g u e rillas w h ile the mi l i t aryw as patr ol l i ng the ar ea dur i ng M ayand J une of 2005 buttheyr eturned once the mi l i t aryl eft . A . R . at136- 37. Posa da- M art i nez s ubm i t t ed document s t o s uppor thi s cl ai m s . I n a l ett erdat ed M ay 2 0 0 5 , the g u e rillas sta ted th a t th e yh a d h e a rd th a t P o sa d a -M a rtin e z w a s in f lu e n tial in h is j ob. T heys t at ed thathe mustpayone hundr ed mi l l i on pes os w i thi n for ty - fi ve day s . T hey i ndi cat ed thattheyknew he had a cce s s t o the budgetof the U ni on. T heyw arned hi m t hat if h e w en t t o the p o li ce , h e a n d h is fam il yw o u ld p aythe c o n seq u en ce s. A . R . at 18 9 . In J ul y2005, Posa da- M art i nez r ece i ved anothercomm uni cat i on fr om the guer i l l as as ki ng form oney . I n a l ett erdat ed A ugus t28, 2005, the guer i l l as not ed thathe had notcompl i ed w i th thei rl as tr eques tand thathe s houl d cons i derhi m s el f thei r“mi l i t aryobj ect i ve” f or n o t f u lf illin g h is d u ty. A .R . a t 1 9 2 . In re s p o n s e , P o s a d a -M a rt in e z m o v e d to a n o th e r c ity.W e agr ee w i th t he governm entthatPosa da- M art i nez di d notexhaus thi s ar gum ent 1 that the g u erril las t arg eted h im b ase d o n h is st atus as a land o w n er. 5 W hen hi s form erempl oy ees t ol d hi m thatthe guer i l l as w er e l ooki ng forhi m , he l eftand cam e t o the U nit ed S t at es.

Pas tPer s ecut i on Posa da- M art i nez a r gues thathe i s ent i t l ed t o as y l um bas ed on pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup of l andow ni ng farm er s and com m un i tyl eaders. W e need no treach the q uest i on of w hetherthe thr eat s m ade ag ai nst Posa da- M art i nez c ons t i tut ed pas tper s ecut i on orw hetheruni on l eade r s m aybe 1 con si dered a p art i cularsoci al group . H e i s unab l e t o sho w that the record com pels a fi nd i ng that hi s m em bershi p in a part i cularsoci al group w as a centr al reas on for anypast p erse cu ti o n . T h e B IA d eterm ined that the g u erril las’ i n q u iryinto P o sad a-M arti n ez ’s p o s itio n in th e U n io n d id n o t s h o w th a t h is p o s itio n w a s a c e n tr a l r e a s o n f o r t h e ira c tio n s . T h e B IA u p h e ld th e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t th e g u e rrillas w e re in ter e ste d o n lyin Posa da- M art i nez’ s m oney . T hi s fi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bythe evi dence des cr i bed above . Posa da- M art i nez a r gues thathe t es t i fi ed thatthe guerr i l l as t ar get ed hi m beca us e he r an the fa r m and w as pr es i dentof the U ni on. H e al s o poi nt s outthatthe guerr i l l as not ed thathe w as i nfl uent i al i n hi s j ob. H ow ever , thi s s t at ementw as fol l ow ed bya demand for m oneyand the guerr i l l as not i ng thattheyknew Posa da- M art i nez ha d acc es s t o theT h e IJ n o ted th a t P o sa d a -M a rtin e z h a d n o t id e n tifie d a n yp a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p to 2 w hi ch he be l onged. A . R . at70. 6 U n ion ’s m o n ey . A . R . at 18 9 . T h e g u erril las’ st atem en t r eg ard ing P o sad a-M arti n ez ’s i nfl uence atthe U ni on does notcompel a fi ndi ng thathi s uni on l eade r s hi p w as a ce nt r al r e a s o n f o rth e g u e r r i l l a s ’ tr e a t me n to f h i m.

Futur e per s ecut i on P o sad a-M arti n ez co n tend s tha t he h as e stab li sh ed a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup of l andow ner s and u n ion lead ers w h o h av e re sist ed F A R C ’s th rea ts an d fled . H o w ev er, as n o ted e arli er, Posa da- M art i nez a r gued bef or e the B I A thatthe s oci al gr oup he bel onged t o w as uni on lea d e rs. A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , the B IA d e ter m in e d th a t th e g u e rrillas w e re in ter e ste d o n ly

2 i n Posa da- M art i nez’ s m oney , and w e conc l ude thatthe r ecor d does notcompel a fi ndi ng that h e w il l be p erse cu ted b ase d o n h is st atus as a u n ion lead er. Posa da- M art i nez a l s o ar gues thathe had a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. H e cont ends thati ti s s el f- evi dentthatthe g u e rrillas w ill a ttribu te a n a n ti-F A R C p o lit ica l o p in io n to h im b e c a u se h e d id n o t co m p ly w ith th e ir d e m a n d s. H o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re jec ted a sim ilar a rg u m e n t– th a t a guerr i l l a or gani zat i on’ s att empt t o cons cr i pta per s on nece s s ar i l ycons t i tut ed per s ecut i on o n a c c o u n t o f

p o litic a l o p in io n . I

. N . S. v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 2 (1 9 9 2 ).Posa da- M art i nez a l s o appl i ed forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . B eca us e he ha s notm et 3 th e s ta n d a rd f

o r a s y lu m , h e c a n n o t m e e t th e h ig h e r s ta n d a rd f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. G hebr ehi w otv. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 7 Posa da- M art i nez quot es fr om ournon- pr ece dent i al opi ni on i n A r i as v. G onz al es , 143 Fed. A ppx. 464 ( 3d C i r . 2005) as s uppor tforhi s ar gum entthathi s r efus al t o gi ve m o n e yto th e F A R C g u e rr illa s w ill c a u s e th e m to im p u te a n a n ti- F A R C p o litic a l o p in io n . “[T] he FA R C i s know n t o ext or ts o- cal l ed ‘ w art axes ’ fr om ci vi l i ans i n or dert o fi nance its o p e ra tio n s. P a ym e n t o f w a r ta x e s is e sp e c iallyc o m m o n in se c tio n s o f C o lo m b ia contr ol l ed bythe FA R C . R efus al ori nabi l i tyt o paythes e w art axes i s vi ew ed as an ac tof pol i t i cal oppos i t i on and oft en r es ul t s i n r epr i s al . ” I d. a t 4 6 5 . W e a re n o t b o u n d b yd icta f ro m o p in io n s th a t ar e n o t p re c e d e n tial. 3 rd C ir. I. O .P . 5 .7 ; s ee al s o 8 U. S . C. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) ( “[T] he courtof appe al s s hal l deci de the pet i t i on onl yon the ad m inistrati v e re co rd o n w h ich th e o rde r of rem o v al i s b ase d . ”). P o sad a-M arti n ez asse rt s tha t th e f ac t th at th e g u erril las l ab eled h im a “ m il it ary o b jec tiv e ” d e m o n stra tes th a t th e g u e rrillas im p u ted a n a n ti-F A R C p o lit ica l o p in io n to hi m . H ow ever , thi s i s nots uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thata r eas onabl e fa ct - fi nderw oul d be com pell ed to fi nd that the g uerr i l l as t arget ed h i m based o n h i s poli t i cal op i nions.

R eli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re 3 T he B I A concl uded thatPosa da- M art i nez ha d w ai ved hi s cl ai m t o C A T r el i ef b ec au se h e f

ail ed to raise ito n ap p ea l. T h e o n lym en ti o n o f C A T reli ef in h is brief b ef

o reT he I J not ed i n hi s opi ni on thatPosa da- M art i nez ha d nots peci fi cal l ym ent i oned 4 t or tur e. A . R . at68. 8 the B I A w as i n t he penul t i m at e s ent ence . “B as ed on the ar gum ent s det ai l ed above , R es pondent[] r eques t s thathe be gr ant ed as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and/ or pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. ” A . R . at45. C i t i ng H oxha v. H

older , 5 5 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , P o s a d a - M a r t i n e z c o n t e n d s th a th i s r e f e r e n c e t o CA T r el i ef w as s uffi ci entt o exhaus tthe i s s ue. I n H oxha , the pet i t i onerexpl i ci t l ychal l enged the I J ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on fora cont i nuance i n hi s not i ce of appea l : “The I m m i gr at i on J udge err ed i n deny i ng [the] r eques tfora cont i nuance as hi s pr evi ous att orneyw i thdr ew ju st p rio r to h is in d iv id u a l h e a rin g . F o r th is re a so n , [H o x h a ’s] c o u n se l w a s n o t ab le to as s i s thi m i n pr epar i ng hi s cl ai m . ” I d. at158. H ow ever , the pet i t i onerfai l ed t o r ai s e the is s u e in h is b ri e f

b e f o re th e B IA . W e h e ld th a t h e h a d s u f f ic ie n tly e x h a u s te d th e is s u e . “[ T ]he iden ti fica ti o n o f a n issue in a p arty ’s no ti ce o f a p p ea l sat isfies th e statuto ry r equi r ementof exha us t i on pr ovi ded thatthe des cr i pt i on of thati s s ue i n the not i ce s uffi ci ent l yappr i s es the B I A of the bas i s forthe appe al . ” I d. at159. H er e, Posa da- M art i nez mer el yr eques t ed r el i ef unde rthe C A T . H e made no a r g u me n ta s t o wh yh e wa s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , n o rd i d h e c h a l l e n g e th e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f CA T r el i ef i n anyw ay . H i s pas s i ng r efe r ence t o C A T r el i ef di d notgi ve the B I A s uffi ci ent 4 no t i ce of the b asi s for hi s appea l of the den i al of C A T rel i ef. T hu s, he fa i l ed to exh aust this i ssu e, an d w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew it . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ).9

M ot i on t o r emand P o s a d a - M a r t i n e z c h a l l e n g e s th e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d . He su b m itt e d e v id e n c e th a t h is b ro th e r h a d b e e n m u rd e re d in th e sa m e a re a w h e re h e h im se lf h a d b e e n th re a ten e d b yth e g u e rrillas . T h e B IA n o ted th a t th e re w a s n o in d ica tio n a s to w hyhi s br otherw as ki l l ed and thatPosa da- M art i nez w as unabl e t o demonstr at e thatone centr al r eas on forhi s br other ’ s death w as on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. A m o tio n to re m a n d is th e f u n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f

a m o tio n to re o p e n . Kor ytnyuk v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 272, 282 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U nder8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) , the B I A m ay n o t g ra n t a m o tio n to re o p e n u n les s th e e v id e n c e o f f e re d is m a ter ial a n d p re v io u sly unavai l abl e. W hi l e Pos ada- M art i nez a r gues thatthe B I A w r ongl ydeci ded thathe had not concl us i vel yes t abl i s hed hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , w e bel i eve thatthe B I A deni ed the m ot i on t o r emand on t he gr ound t hatthe evi dence offe r ed w as notm at er i al t o the i s s ue of w h e th e ra n ya l l e g e d p e r s e c u t i o n w a s o rw o u l d b e o n a c c o u n to f a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d . We re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re m a n d o n th a t b a s is f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U .S . 9 4 , 1 0 5 (1 9 8 8 ). U n d e r a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , w e w ill r ever s e the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl yi f i ti s “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Sevoi an v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on t o r emand w i th r es pectt o Posa da- M art i nez’ s cl ai m s for as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he new evi dence does nots uppor thi s cl ai m s that he w as orw i l l be per s ecut ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound.10

Ho we v e r , th e BI A d i d n o ta d d r e s s th i s n e w e v i d e n c e wi th r e s p e c tt o th e CA T claim . T o rec eive reli ef u n d er the C A T , P o sad a-M arti n ez n ee d n o t sho w that an ytortu re w ill b e o n a c c o u n t o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . G om ez - Zul uaga v. A t t ’ y G en. , 527 F. 3d 330, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W hi l e Pos ada- M art i nez w ai ved anychal l enge t o the I J ’ s deni al of C A T r el i ef ba s ed on the r ecor d befor e the I J , he di d r ai s e the i s s ue of w hetherhi s new evidence w as suffi ci ent t o sup po rta rem and t o the I J. B ecause the B IA fai l ed to add res s w hetherthe C A T cl ai m s houl d be r emanded t o the I J i n l i ghtof Posa da- M art i nez’ s new e v id e n c e , w e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n a n d re m a n d th e m a tter to th e B IA to a d d re ss th is l i m i t ed i s s ue. I n al l ot herr es pect s , w e w i l l aff i r m the B I A ’ s deci s i on.