FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 76 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 88 -1 68 -5 61 MARIN DANCHEV YONKOV, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mar in Danc he v Yo nk ov pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g the Im m ig rat io n Jud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o fwithh ol di ng of r em ov al
. Yon ko v, a c it iz enof B ul ga ria , cla im s h e su ffer edpa st 1 pe rs ecu ti on an d fe ars futur e p ers ecu ti on inBu lg ari a b ecau se of h is ho m os ex ua li ty. Afte r rev ie w, we den y

hi s p et it io n. 2 To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for withh ol di ng of r em ov al , an app li can t m us t s ho w th athi s “ li fe o r free do m

wou ldbe th reat en edinth atco un try becaus e o f [h is ] race , 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.” Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”) § 24 1( b) (3 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A). To m eetth is st an da rd , th e ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w th atitis “ m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ” th athe eit he r su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on or h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f on e o f th e fi ve pro te ct ed gr ou nd s. Me nd oz a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 27 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (h y ph en s o m it te d) ; 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (2 ). 3 On appe al, Yonkov does not c halleng e the de nial of his reque st for asy lum or for re lief 1 under the Convention Ag ainst Torture, a nd we do not addr ess these c laims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Where, a s here , the B IA adopts the I J ’s re asoning , we r eview both the IJ ’s and the B IA’s 2 decisions. See Al Na

jjar v. Ashcr oft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2001). We review the deter mination that an alien is statutorily ineligible f

or withholding of

remova l under the “ highly defe rential” substantial evidence test, which re quires us to aff irm if the dec ision is “supported by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the rec ord consider ed as a whole.” I d. (quotation marks omitted). We will reve rse “ only when the r ecor d compels a r ever sal; the mere fac t that the rec ord may

support a contr ary

conclusion is not enough to justi fy a re versa l of the administrative finding s.” Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F .3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Although this Court has not addr essed the issue, theBIA has c oncluded that 3 homosex uals constitute a “pa rticular soc ial group.” I

n re Toboso- Alfonso, 20 I . & N . Dec . 819, 822-23 (B IA 1990). On a ppeal, the pa

rties do not dispute that homosex uality is a protec ted fac tor. Acc ording ly , we ne ed not re ach that issue. 2W e wil l n otrev ers e a fi nd in g t ha t an ap pl ic an t fa il edto de m on st rat e a n ex us

be twee n the all eg edpe rs ecu ti on an d apro te ct edgro un d unl es s the ev id en ce co m pe ls a co nc lu si on th atth e ap pl ic an t h as be enor wi ll be pe rs ecu te d “ be cau se of ” th e p ro te ct edgro un d. Ro dr ig ue z Mo ral es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 88 F.3d88 4, 89 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Furt he rm or e, ev id en ce o f act s o f pr iv at e v io le nc e o r cri m in al act iv it y do es no t d em on st rat e p ers ecu ti on on a pr ot ect edgro un d. Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 40 F.3d12 47 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Altho ug h t he INA do es no t d efi ne pe rs ecu ti on , th is Co urt h as de sc rib ed pe rs ecu ti on as “ 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.” Rui z v . Gon zal ez, 4 79 F.3d76 2, 7 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . This Co urt h as co nc lu de d t ha t thr eat s i n co nju nc ti on with b rie f de te nt io ns or am in orph y si cal att ackth atdi d n otres ul t i n se rio us ph y si cal in

jury do n otris e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . See, e.g ., Kazem zad ehv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 77 F.3d13 41 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (arr es t, fiv e-h ou r in te rro ga ti on an d b eat in g, fo ll owe d b y fou r-d ay de te nt io n) ; Djon dav. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 14 F.3d11 68 , 11 71 , 11 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (3 6- ho urde 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 89 -9 1 (1 1t h C ir.2 00 6) (fi ve -d ay de te nt io n)
.

3Here, Yo nk ov tes ti fie d t ha t h e su ffer edtwo att ack s i n B ul ga riaov er an

ei gh t-year p eri od . The fi rs t at ta ckoc cu rredin19 92 , whenYon ko v was inhi gh
sc ho ol . Whi le at abu s s to p, Yo nk ov was c al le d d is res pe ct fu l n am es an d h is no se was bro ke n. The sec on d a tt ackoc cu rredinDecem be r 20 00 , sh ortl y

be fo re Yo nk ov cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n J anua ry 20 01 . Two un se enass ai la nt s at ta ck edYon ko v fro m be hi ndwhi le he walk eddo wn the streetat n ig ht . Yon ko v’s at ta ck ers cal le d hi m de ro ga to ry

na m es forho m os ex ua ls an d h itan d k ic ke d h im , bre ak in g h is jaw. Yon ko v was ho sp it al iz edfor si x d ay s an d h adsurg ery to rep os it io n h is jaw, whic h affe ct edhi s ab il ity

to ch ew orsp eakforab ou t two m on th s. A m ed ic al rep ort s ta te d t ha t Yo nk ov ’s att ack ers “ ai m edto rob hi m .” Yon ko v a dm itte d t ha t h e to ldhi s d oc to rs he was a tt ack edas p artof arob be ry an d
ex pl ai ne d t ha t Bu lg ari anpe op le th in k h om os ex ua ls are wea lt hy. Yon ko v a ls o 4 adm it te d h e n ev er s aw hi s as sa il an ts an d “ gu es s[ ed ]” or “ as su m [ed ]” tha t the y kn ew he was g ay

be cau se th ey

cal le d h im

by nam e an d b ecau se he was aba ll et da nc er an d h ada “ st y le of wa lk in g” th atwas “ art is ti c.”

For the first time on appe al, Yonkov conte nds he did not tell his doctors the rea son for 4 his attack be cause of the inhospitable climate f or g ay s in Bulg aria . There is no record evidenc e supporting this conte ntion, and we c annot consider fac ts not raised in the administrative for um. See Ade femi v. Ashcr oft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 4Yon ko v re po rte d t he sec on d a tt ackto th e Bu lg ari anpo li ce. A de te ct iv e

vi si te d Yo nk ov inth e h os pi ta l an d a sk edhi m qu es ti on s. Ho wev er, Yo nk ov do es no t kno w whathapp en edwith t he po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on be cau se he lef t fo r th e Uni te d S ta te s s ho rtl y

th erea fte r. Yon ko v t es ti fie d t ha t i n B ul ga riaho m os ex ua li ty is v ie wedas asi ckne ss an d th atth e Bu lg ari ango ve rn m en t d oe s n otpro te ctho m os ex ua ls . The 2 00 8 U.S. St at e Dep artm en t’s Co un try repo rt f orBu lg ari a in di cat edth at : (1 ) Bu lg ari anlaw pr oh ib it eddi sc riminat io n b as edon sex ua l o rie nt at io n, (2 ) th e Bu lg ari an go ve rn m en t d idno t en fo rce t he law ef fect iv el y an d g ay Bu lg ari an s wer e rel uc ta nt to pu rs ue leg al rem ed ie s b ecau se of t he st ig m a fo r be in g o pe nl y ga y ; (3 ) rep orts of vi ol en ce ag ai ns t s ex ua l m in or it ie s wer e rare , and(4) th e Bu lg ari anpo li ce arres te d ap pr ox im at el y

si xt y pe op le who att em

pt edto di srup t Bu lg ari a’s fi rs t g ay pri de pa rad e, in whi chap pr ox im at el y a hu nd redparti ci pa nt s m arch edun de r ti gh t se cu rit y pro te ct io n. W e can no t s ay

th atth e ev id en ce co m

pe ls th e co nc lu si onth atYon ko v su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti onor h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Firs t, un de r ou r pr eced en t, the two in ci de nt s Yo nk ov de sc rib ed , whi choc cu rredeig ht y ears ap art , do no t am ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on . In an y ev en t, the ev id en ce d oe s n ot co m pe l a c on cl us io n t ha t the two att ack s wer e m ot iv at edby Y on ko v’s

5ho m os ex ua li ty. Not ab ly, th e IJfou ndth atth e p rimary m ot iv e fo r th e se co nd at ta ck was ro bb ery, an d t ha t fi nd in g i s s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Fu rth erm or e, subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e d et erm in at io n t ha t Yo nk ov fai le d t o d em on st rat e a l ik el ih oo d o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . For the reas on s al read y st at ed , th e two att ack s d o n otpro vi de a reas on ab le ba si s fo r fearin g p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh Yon ko v a ss ert edth atth e Bu lg ari anpo li ce d o n otpro te ctho m os ex ua ls fro m att ack , th e d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d h is cla im . Accor di ng to th e 2 00 8 C ou nt ry Rep ort, wh il e ho m os ex ua ls are s ti gm at iz edan d d is cri m in at edag ai ns t, p hysic al vi ol en ce ag ai ns t th em is rare . In 2 00 8, Bu lg ari anpo li ce p ro te ct edm arch ers inth e fi rs t g ay pri de pa rad e an d a rres te d abo utsi xt y pro te st ers who att em

pt edto di srup t i t. Bec au se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e d et erm in at io n t ha t Yo nk ov , eve n if c red it ed , was s ta tu to ril y in el ig ib le forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al , we do no t ad dr es s Yo nk ov ’s othe r arg um en t tha t the IJ f ai le d t o m ak e a cl eanadve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n. 5 PETI TI ON DENI ED. We rejec t the g overnme nt’s argument that Yonkov aba ndoned any

challeng e to his 5 statutory elig ibility

for withholdingof re moval. Although the majority of Yonkov’s brief focuse d on the ade quacy

of the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding , the brief

also raise d as a separate issue whether

Yonkov had met his burde n to show that the attac ks he experienc ed in B ulga ria constituted perse cution on acc ount of a prote cted f actor . See Allstate I

ns. Co., v. Swann, 27 F.3d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1994) (e x plaining that, although issues not c learly designated in the openingbrief a

re ordinarily

deeme d abandone d, those brief s are “re ad libera lly

to asce rtain the issues raised on a

ppeal” ). 6