FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 8 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1179 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 79- 497- 701 FE RNA ND O R OJA S, Petitioner, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tition for Re view f

rom a Final O rder of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 8, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A , and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Fe rn an do R oj as , aCo lom bian c iti ze n a

ppe ar ing w ithc ouns el , pe tit ion s f or re vie wof the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( “ BI A ’ s” ) or de r af fi rm ing theBe cause Rojas’s remova l proce eding s commence d afte r April 1, 1997, the pe rmane nt rules 1 of the I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Publ. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) apply . Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 392 F .3d 434, 435 (1 1th Cir. 2004). 2 Im m igration Ju dge’ s (“ IJ’ s”) denial of asy lum and withholdi ng of rem oval und er the I m m igr at ionN at ion al ity

A ct ( “ IN A ”) and the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d othe r Cr ue l, I nhum an e, and D eg ra din g T re atm en t or Punis hm en t ( “ CA T ”) . A ft er r ev ie w , w e de ny

Ro j as ’ s pe tit ion . 1 I. BACK GROUND O n or about S ep te m be r 12, 200 0, Ro

j as w as a dm itt ed

to the U nit ed

S ta te s on a six-m onth visa, w ith autho rization to rem ain until Marc h 11, 2001 . Roj as the n r em ai ne d inthe U nit ed S ta te s be y ond that pe ri od w ith out auth or iz at ionf

ro m the I m m igr at ionand N at

ur al iz at ionS er

vic e (“ IN S” ). O n O ct obe r 29, 200 1, the IN S se rv ed

Ro j as w ithanot ic e to a

ppe ar ( “N T A ”) c harg ing that he w as r em ova ble be ca use he r em ai ne d inthe U nit ed S ta te s f or ati m e lon ge r than pe rm itt ed , in vio la tio n of

I N A § 23 7( a) (1 )( B) , 8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (1 )( B) . A t an Apr il 25, 200 2, he ari ng , Rojas ap pe ared wit h c ou ns el an d c on ced edth e al le ga ti on s i n t he NTA a n dc o n c e d e dr e mo v ab i l i t y. H o w e v e r , R o j a s f i l e dan ap p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s yl u m, w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and C A T pr ote ct ion . A. R ojas’s EvidenceRojas also submitt ed, the e veningbefor e the he aring , a stateme nt describinghis alleg ed 2 perse cution and death threats in Colombia. The I J noted that his testimony at the hea

ringwas c on sis te nt w iththi s st ate me nt. 3 On Se pt em

be r 25 , 20 02 , th e IJ he lda he ari ng reg ard in g R ojas ’s app li cat io n. Roj as testified that he wa s persecuted in Colom bia on account of his p olitical opi nio n. S pe ci fi ca lly , Ro j as te sti fi ed

that he w as hara sse d, thr eate ne d, and 2 pe rs ec ute d by

the Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lom bia ( “ FA RC ”) ba se d on his a sso ci at ionw iththe L ibe ra l P ar ty and h is e ff

orts t o m ai nta in d em oc ra cy in Colom bia. Ro j as te sti fi ed , c onsi ste nt w ithhis a sy lum appl ic at ion , that he j oin ed the L ibe ra l P ar

ty in 1985 be ca

use his f athe r w as aparty

le ad er . H e he lpe d w ith election cam

paigns and rec ruitm ent and sup ported the party with his com

puter expe rt ise . I n M ar ch199 8, Ro j as and s ev er al f

am ily m em be rs w er e he ad ed

ba ck to Bogota from

a political y outh m eeting when they we re stopped by

FA RC gue rr ill as . T he F A RC too k th ei r ide nti fi catio n do cum en ts, se parate d th em , and asked them

question s about th eir ac tivities. The FA RC also said they we re offended because of R oja s’ s and his com panion s’ political activities, and told th em that they we re to stop telling the y outh about their poli tical party , but instead recr uit them into th e FA RC. T he FA RC told them that they would all be underUribe is the c urre nt president of Colombia. 3 4 sur ve ill an ce , and i f the y

inf orm ed the auth or iti es about

the inc ide nt, the y

c oul d co ns id er t he m se lv es de ad . Ro j as w orke d a s ac om

put er te ch nic ian f

or ac om pany w hose c lie nts inc lud ed Co lom bian po lit ic ians and C olo m bian go ve rn m en t a ge nc ie s. I n M ar chor Apr il fo llo w ing the above inc ide nt, Ro j as r ec ei ve d ph one c al ls at hi s of fi ce f ro m pe rs ons as kin g qu es tio ns tha t a nor m al c ust om er

w oul d no t a sk, inc lud ing que sti ons ab out

the c om pany ’ s owne rs and c lie nts . Ro j as sub se que ntl y

m ove d f ro m Bo got a to M ed el lin , w he re he ope ne d a new c om pany and again becam e involv ed in poli tics. H e participated in political cam paigns, health brigades, and adm inistrative activities, and also provi ded com puter supp ort to the Libera l Party and provid ed com

puters and com

puter tr ai nin g to sc hool stu de nts . R oj as te sti fi ed that he r ec ei ve d nu m er ous thr eats f ro m FA RC guerr illas for suppo rting the Liberal P arty and teaching the y outh com puter ski lls . H e ind ic at ed

that the gue ri lla s ha d in fi ltr at ed e ve ry w he re and c oul d e as ily le arn of h is act iv it ie s. O n Augus t 19 , 200 0, Ro

j as w as a t a

pub lic pol iti ca l m ee tin g sp eakin g a bout the c am pa ignplatf

orm of D r. A lvaro U ri be , w ho w as r unni ng f or pr es ide nt o f 3 Colom bia, and abou t the guerillas. A t the end of the m eeting, tw o m enRojas had obtained a visitor’s visa in 1999. 4 5 ap pr oa ch ed

him and t old him to sto p sp eakin g ou t a ga ins t the m and p ar tic ipatin g in the L ibe ra l P ar

ty , and tha t i f he r ep orte d th e thr eat, the y w oul d f ind him and ha rm hi m or h is fam il y . O n S ep te m

be r 8, 200 0, Ro

j as c al le d hi s of

fi ce and h is s ec re tary

tol d hi m that tw o m enf

ro m the F A RC ha d c om e to the of fi ce loo kin g f

or him , se ar ch ed

the of fic e, be en vu lg ar t owa rd s h er, an d t ol d h er t o t el l h im th atth ey wou ldfin d h im . L at er that e ve nin g, Ro

j as r ec ei ve d apho ne c al l a t ho m e fr om som eo ne de cl ar ing him a “ m ilitary

objec tive.” Fo llo w ing that ph one c al l, Ro j as and h is w if

e w en t t o af

ri en d’ s ho use , and the ne xt d ay

Ro j as le ft f or Bo got a, w he re he stay ed w ithaf ri en d and p ur ch as ed

a tic ke t t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s. R oj as ’ s w if

e re m ai ne d in

he r m oth er ’ s ho use in 4 Me de lli n. R oj as te sti fi ed that a ft er he le ft , his of

fi ce r ec ei ve d se ve ra l ph one c al ls as kin g w he n he w oul d r et ur n, and t es tif

ie d th at if he r et ur ne d to Co lom

bia , he wou ldbe ki ll ed . O n c ro ss- ex am inatio n, Ro j as state d th at

his w if e sti ll liv es in Me de lli n and his pare nts and tw o si ste rs sti ll liv e in B ogot a. H e furthe r adm itt ed that he ha d no problem s in Colom

bia from April of 1998 until Augus t of 2000 and that he never6

inform ed the authorities abou t what had happened to him because he thought they co ul d b e in fil tra te d b y

th e g ue rri ll as . Ina ddi tio n to Ro

j as ’ s te sti m ony , the r ec or d a lso inc lud ed the f oll ow ing re le vant e vid en ce : ( 1) ac er tif ie d st at em en t f

ro m ar ep re se ntativ e of

the de partm en t of A nti oqui a, the de partm en t i n w hic h R oj as r es ide d, statin g th at thr eats b y

“ subv er siv e gr oups ” ag ai nst Ro j as ’ s li fe and h is f

am ily ’ s li ve s f

or ce d hi m

to le av e the c ountry ; ( 2) ade cl ar at ionby the f ri en d w ithw hom

Ro j as stay ed

in Me de lli n be fo re le av ing Co lom

bia , statin g th at

thr eats a ga ins t R oj as ’ s li fe be ca use of his pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s f

or ce d hi m

to le av e Co lom

bia ; and ( 3) the 200 1 S ta te D ep ar tm en t C ount

ry Re port f or Co lom bia , w hic h st at es that the F A RC r eg ularl y atta ck ed c ivi lian po pul at ion s; tha t the gue ri lla s w er e re spon sib le f or the m aj or ity of the kidna pin gs; that c om

m on g ue ri lla

targ et s in cl ude d e le ct ed

of fi ci al s, candi da te s f

or pub lic of fi ce , and c ivi c le ad er s; tha t ki dna pin g is am aj or

sourc e of m one y f or the F A RC ; and tha t the F A RC und er too k arm ed

a ct ion s inne ar ly

1, 000 of th e co un try’ s 1 ,09 7 m

un ic ip al it ie s. B. IJ’ s D ec isi on T he I J c onc lud ed

that R oj as w as not

e nti tle d to a sy lum

be ca use he ha d no t es ta bli she d th at

he ha d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on i f he r et

ur ne d to Co lom bia be ca use : ( 1) Ro

j as f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t he c oul d no t sa fe ly r el oc at e7

w ith in C olo m

bia ; ( 2) Ro

j as ne ve r co nta ct ed

the auth or iti es to se ek

pr ote ct ion ; and (3) his wif

e and parents rem ain in Colom bia without any

problem s. T he IJ further co nc lud ed

that the thr eats h e re ce ive d di d no t r ise to the le ve l of pa st p er se cu tio n. The I J further concluded that Roja s had failed to satisfy the higher standard req ui redforwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d d idno t q ua li fy forCAT pro te ct io n. C . B IAA pp ea l T he BI A a ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n, and R oj as now pe ti ti on s t hi s C ou rt f

orrev ie w. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW T he I J’ s f ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is not

e nti tle d to a sy lum

m ust be upheldif it is suppo rted by subst antial evidence. See D- Muhum ed v. U nited States A tt’ y

Ge n., 388 F.3d 814, 817-18 (11th Cir. 2004); cf. 8 U. S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ( pr ovi din g th at “ adm ini str at ive f

ind ing s of

f ac t are c onc lus ive unl es s any

r ea sona ble a dj udi cator

w oul d be c om

pe lle d to c onc lud e to the co ntr ar y ”) . U nde r thi s hi ghl y

de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , ade nia l of

a sy lum m ay be r ev er se d on ly

if the e vid en ce w oul d c om pe l a r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er to fi nd“When the B IA summarily aff irms the I J ’s dec ision withoutopinion, the I J ’s dec ision 5 become s the final removal order subject t o revie w.” Sepulveda v. United S tates Att ’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (c itation omit ted). On appe al, Rojas failed to argue his withholding of remova l and C AT claims. Those issues 6 are wa ive d, and

we ne e d n ot c on sid e r t

he m. S e e Row e v. Sc hr e ibe r, 13 9 F .3 d 1 38 1, 13 82 n. 1 ( 11 th Cir. 1998) (holdingthat issues not argued on appe al are deemed wa ived). The ref ore, the only

issue on appea l is whether the I J err ed in deny ing Rojas’ s asylum claim. In any event, be cause he fa iled to establish eligibility

for a sylum, he also fails t o s at i s fy elig ibilit y

for withholdingof re moval or CAT relief

. Nre ka v. United States Att’y Gen., — F.3d —, No. 04-10009 (11th Cir. May 16, 2005).

8 that the r equis ite f

ear of pe rs ec uti on e xis ts. I N S v. E lia s- Z ac ar ia s, 502 U . S. 478 , 481 n .1, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 n.1 (1992 ). 5 III. D ISCU SSION On appeal, Roj as asserts that the IJ er red in deny ing hi s asy lum claim based on the f ac t tha t he f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t he f

ac ed pa st p er se cu tio n or

ha d aw el lfo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on. 6 A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or as y lum . S ee 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ). H ow ev er , the A tto rn ey G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to grant asy lum

only if the alien m eets the IN A’ s definition of a “ refugee. ” Se e 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(b)(1). A “ re fu ge e” is: any person who is outs ide any country of such person’ s nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e an y c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua lly r es ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or9

herself of the protec tion o f, that country because of per secution or a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a particular social group, or political op in io n . . . . 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ) (e m pha sis a dde d) . T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tut or

y “ re fu ge e” status . A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). A n a lie n is a“ re fu ge e” and the re fo re e lig ibl e fo r as y lum if he c ane sta

bli sh, with specific and credible evidence: (1) past persec ution on account of his po litical opi nio n or

oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor ; or ( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that hi s po li ti cal op in io n o r ot he r st atut or il y li st edfact orwil l ca us e fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .13 (a), (b ); s ee al so Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 7. Whil e th e INA does not define persec ution , this Court previouslyhas recognized that

“ pe rs ec uti on i s an e xtr em e co nc ep t, r equir ing m or e than af ew iso la te d in ci de nts of ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, and tha t m er e hara ssm en t do es not a m ount to pe rs ec uti on. ” S ep ulv ed a v. U nit ed S ta te s A tt’ y

G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 226, 123 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, br ac ke ts, and c itatio ns o m itt ed ); se e al so Gonzalez v. Re no, 212 F.3d 1338 , 1355 (11th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases); N el son v. I N S, 232 F . 3d 2 58, 263 ( 1st Ci r. 200 0) ( pe rs ec uti on “ m ust r ise above un pl eas an tn es s, h aras sm en t, an d e ve n b as ic su ffer in g” ).10

If the a lien dem onstrates past persecution , he is also presum ed to have a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on unle ss the gov er nm en t c anr eb ut the pr es um pti on. 8 C . F. R § 208 . 13( b) (1 ). I f, how ev er , the a lie n do es not e sta bli sh pa st p er se cu tio n, he be ar s th e bur de n of de m onstratin g aw el l- fo unde d f ear of future persec ution by

showing that: (1) he fear s persecution based on his pol itical o p i n i o n ; ( 2 ) th e r e i s ar e a s o n ab l e p o s s i b i l i t y h e w i l l s u f f e r p e r s e c u t i o n i n h i s h o me co untry ; and ( 3) he c oul d no t avoi d pe rs ec uti on b y r el oc at ing to an oth er

part of that c ountry , if

und er a ll the c ir cum stanc es it

w oul d be r ea sona

ble to expe ct

him to do s o. S ee 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (2 ), ( b) (3 )( i) . “ [A ] n a ppl ic an t m

ust de m onstrate that hi s or

he r fe ar of pe rs ec uti on i s su

bj ec tiv el y ge nui ne and o bj ec tiv el y re as ona ble . ” A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84. E sta bli shi ng a ne xus be tw ee n th e statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor and the f eare d pe rs ec uti on “ re qui re s th e al ie n to pr es en t specific, detailed fac ts sho wing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled ou t fo r pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f su ch [a fac to r].” D-Muh um ed , 38 8 F .3dat 8 18 . Roj as failed to establish that he faced past persec ution . Although he w as de ta ine d by

the F A RC a t a

r oa dbl oc k and r ec ei ve d se ve ra l thr eate nin g ph one c al ls, m er e thr eats and h ar as sm en t do not c onst itu te pe rs ec uti on. S ee S ep ulv ed a, 401 F. 3d at 12 31. R oj as doe s no t c ont en d th at he suf fe re d any harm be y ond thr eats and the brief detention at the roadblock in 1998 . Ac cordingly , substantialAlthough w e do not rely on it, we note that Rojas himself asser ts in his brief that President 7 Ur ibe , f or wh om Roja s campa ig ne d, “ ha s w a g e d a n e ff e c tiv e and dr a sti c mil ita

ry c ampa ig n a g a ins t the FA RC” since Rojas left Colombia. 11 evidence suppo rts the IJ’ s decision th at Roj as did not dem onstrate that he face d pa st p er se cu tio n. S ee T aw m v. A shc ro ft , 363 F . 3d 7 40, 742 -4 4 ( 8thCi r. 200 4) ( no pa st p er se cu tio n w he re a lie n w as tw ic e de ta ine d br ie fl y and l igh tly

be at enbut sus ta ine d no se ri ous inj ur y ); se e al so N el son, 232 F . 3d at 26 4 ( no p as t pe rs ec uti on w he re a lie n w as thr ee ti m es pla ce d insol itary c onf ine m en t and p hy sic al ly

abuse d, an d su bj ec te d to pe ri odi c sur

ve ill an ce , thr eate nin g ph one c al ls, oc ca sio na l st ops an d s earc he s an d v is it s t o h er p la ce o f em pl oym en t). As f or Roj as’ s argum ent that he has a w ell-founded fear of future persecution, substanti al evidence supports th e IJ’ s determ ination that Roj as failed to establish a re asonable pos sibili ty that he would suffer per secution if he returned to C olo m bia . A lth oughRo

j as w as a ff

ili at ed w iththe L ibe ra l P ar

ty and the gue rr ill as w er e aw ar e of

thi s a ff ili at ion , he w as ase lf

-d es cr ibe d “ lowr an kin g pol iti ca l a ct ivi st, ” an d le ft Co lom bia ne ar ly f ive y ears a go. T he e vid en ce thu s doe s no t c om

pe l the c onc lus ionthat R oj as “ ha d aw el l- fo unde d f ear that the [FA RC] retains an inclination to single [him ] out for persecution.” Sepulveda, 7 401 F. 3d at 12 31- 32. A s R oj as a dm itt ed , his pare nts , sis te rs , one br oth er , and h is w if e ha ve r em ai ne d inCo lom bia w ith out inc ide nt, de spi te the f

ac ts tha t hi s f

am ilyAlthough Rojas a rgues that his pare nts are no lon ger p o litically active, the fac t that they 8 historically

wer e ac t i v e in t he L ibera l Party and have rema ined in Bog ota without incident substantially

underc uts Rojas’s assertion that his fea r of f uture pe rsec ution is reasonable . Roj a s a lso c ha lle ng es on app e a l th e a pp lic atio n a

nd c on sti tut ion a lity

of the int e rn a l- 9 reloc ation require ment. Be cause we c onclude that Rojas fa iled to demonstrate pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f

ear of future perse cution, we do not a ddress this issue. See Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1231. 12 ha s lo ng b ee n in vol ve d w iththe L ibe ra l P ar ty and tha t R oj as w as sc ar ed f or his w if e’ s li fe . S ee T aw m , 363 F . 3d at 74 3 ( fi ndi ng tha t an a lie n di d no t e sta bli sh a 8 w el l- fo unde d f

ear w he re , int er

a lia , the a lie n’ s f

am ily c ont inu ed

to liv e in L eb an on w ith out inc ide nt) . I n a ddi tio n, Ro j as him se lf

li ve d f or y ears in Co lom

bia w ith out inc ide nt and n ev er

r ep orte d to the auth or iti es the thr eats tha t he r ec ei ve d. A s a re sul t, he ha s no t sh ow n th at the Co lom

bian go ve rn m en t c oul d no t or w oul d no t of fe r him w ha te ve r pr ote ct ion , if

any , he m igh t ne ed

in Co lom

bia . S ee Ma zari eg os v. Un it edSta te s At t’y

Gen., 2 41 F.3d 13 20 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). U nde r the se c ir cum stanc es , sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de ci sio n that R oj as f

ai le d to m ee t hi s burd enof pr ovi ng tha t he f

ac ed pa st p er se cu tio n or ha d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on, and tha t he w as , the re fo re , ine lig ibl e fo r asy lum . See 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i). 9 Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e dis ce rnno r ev er sib le erro r. Acco rd in gl y , we den y Ro jas’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w.13

PETI TI ON DENI ED.