NOT 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- 3654

___________ L UZ VE L AS QUE Z - GAR Z ON Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

____________________________________ 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 88 349 091) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

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

J ul y22, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y22, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM L u z V e las q u e z -G a rz o n , a c iti z e n o f C o lo m b ia, e n ter e dth e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly i n J ul y2007, and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) concluded thats he w as r emovabl e forent er i ng w i thouta val i d entrydocument . See2

I mmi g r a t i o n a n dNa t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 7) ( i ) ( I ) ] . V el as quez- G ar zon appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and f o r p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ), alle g in g th a t sh e is a f ra id to re tu rn to C o lo m b ia b e c a u se sh e w a s th re a ten e db yin d iv idu a ls w h o a re a ss o c iate dw ith th e R e v o lu tio n a ry A rm e dF o rc e s in C o lo m b ia (“ F A R C ” ), a k n o w n te rr o ri s t g ro u p . A ccor di ng t o V el as quez- G arzon, ar ound M ar ch 2007, s he borr ow ed a s i gni fi cant su m o f m o n eyfro m an o rga n izati o n k n o w n as “ G o ta G o ta. ” S o o n af ter, sh e c am e to lea rn that“G ot a G ot a” w as as s oci at ed w i th the FA R C . H erfear s w er e conf i rm ed w hen four m a le m e m b e rs o f

th e o rg a n iza tio n c a m e to h e r h o u se a n dre q u e ste dp a ym e n t in A p ril 2007; w hen V el as quez- G arzon coul d notpr ovi de the money , theyi nform ed herthats he had one w eek t o pay . T he s ame fourm en r eturned a w eek l at er , and s he di d nothave the m oney . T he men became vi ol entand aggr es s i ve, s truck herw i th a gun, r i pped her cl othes, used ab usi ve langu age, and threat ened t o k i l l her. V el asquez -G arzon als o tes tifie dth a t sh e w a s h a ra ss e db yp h o n e a n dth a t sh e b e liev e dth e th re a ts b e c a u se a g irl in the nei ghborhood w as ki l l ed ar ound the s ame t i m e. V el as quez- G arzon moved t o a new h o m e a p p rox im atelytw o h o u rs aw ay , w h ere sh e stay ed fo r sev era l m o n ths b ef o re tr avel i ng t o the U ni t ed St at es . She bel i eves thati f s he r eturns t o C ol om bi a, s he w i l l be ki dnapped orki l l ed bym ember s of “G ot a G ot a” orFA R C becaus e theyw antr epaym ent o f th e lo a n . T he I Jfound thatV el as quez- G arzon w as cr edi bl e, butdet erm i ned thats he w as notV el as quez- G ar zon has w ai ved hercl ai m forC A T r el i ef byfai l i ng t o pur s ue i ti n her 1 b ri ef to this C o u rt . S ee L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 ent i t l ed t o as y l um orw i thhol di ng of r emoval becaus e herfear s s t emm ed fr om a per s onal m att erw i thoutanynexus t o herr ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i calopi ni on. T he I Jal s o deni ed r el i ef unde rthe C A T , hol di ng that V el as quez- G ar zon fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thats he w oul d be t ortur ed bya publ i c off i ci al upon r eturn. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, c o n c lu d in g th a t w h ile V e las q u e z -G a rz o n ’s f e a r o f h a rm w a s c e rta in lyu n d e rsta n d ab le, it w as an i ns uffi ci entbas i s foras y l um and w i thhol di ng r emoval . T he B oar d al s o agr eed th a t V e las q u e z -G a rz o n h a dn o t es tab lish e dth a t itw a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w o u ld b e su b jec t to to rtu re “ b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f o r w ith th e a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic offi ci al orper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” Fi nal l y , the B oar d concluded thatthe new evi dence V el as quez- G ar zon off er ed on appe al coul d notbe cons i der ed. V el as quezGa r z o n f i l e da t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 1 “[W ] hen the B I A both adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I Jand di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I Jand the B IA . ” C hen v. A shcroft , 37 6 F . 3d 21 5, 22 2 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). O ur r eview of these deci s i ons i s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , cons i der i ng w hethertheyar e “s upport ed by re a s o n ab le , s u b s ta n tia l, a n dp ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e o n th e re c o rd c o n s id e re da s a w h o le .” L i n- Z heng v. A tt ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on4

om i tt ed) . A n appl i cantforas y l um has the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thats he i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o herhom e country“bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof 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 ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i calopi ni on. ” IN A § 101( a) ( 42) ( A ) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ] ; s ee 8 C . F. R . 208. 13; A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “[A ] keyt as k for anyas y l um appl i canti s t o s how a s uffi ci ent‘ nexus ’ betw een pe r s ecut i on and one of the lis te dp ro te c te dg ro u n d s .” N d a y s h im iye v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 5 7 F .3 d1 2 4 , 1 2 9 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T he r ecor d i n thi s cas e es t abl i s hes thatthe FA R C , ora gr oup aff i l i at ed w i th the FA R C , as s aul t ed and thr eat ened V el as quez- G arzon bec aus e s he di d notr epaym oneythat th e o rg a n iza tio n h a dlen t to h e r. V e las q u e z -G a rz o n a lleg e s th a t “th is is n o ‘p u re ly personal m att er’ ” beca use “[e]verything the F A R C do es i s poli t i cal l ycon nected and has a p o litic a l g o a l.” P e t’ r’ s B r., 7 . N o ta b ly, h o w e v e r, “ [ p ]e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f . . . pol i t i calopi ni on . . . i s per s ecut i on on acc ountof the victi m ’s pol i t i calopi ni on, notthe per s ecut or ’ s . ” IN S v. E l i as - Z acar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 482 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i tt ed) . V el as quez- G ar zon t es t i fi ed thats he w as nota mem berof a pol i t i calgr oup, and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatthe FA R C i m put ed a pol i t i calopi ni on t o her . See Sanchez v. U . S. A tt ’ yG en. , 392 F. 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( percur i am) ( hol di ng that r efus al t o payext ort i on m oneyt o the FA R C di d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on on acc ountof ac tual o r i m p u ted p o li ti ca l op inion ). W e al s o r ej ectV el as quez- G arzon’ s cont ent i on thats he i s a mem berof a part i cul arV el as quez- G ar zon cl ai m s thatthe I Js houl d have “ l ooked more cl os el yatthe 2 D e p a rtm e n t o f

S tate ’s H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tice s R e p o rt” a n df a u lts th e B IA f

o r re f u sin g to cons i dernew evi dence on appea l . T hatm at er i al , how ever , does notbearon w hethers he h a s e s ta b lis h e dth a t s h e w a s p e rs e c u te do n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te dg ro u n d . 5 s oci al gr oup m ade up of FA R C vi ct i m s . See Pet ’ r ’ s B r . , 6. W e have hel d that “mem ber s hi p i n a ‘ part i cul ars oci al gr oup’ can be attr i but ed t o ei ther : ( 1) thos e w ho pos s es s i m m ut abl e char act er i s t i cs s uch as r ace , genderora pr i orpos i t i on, s t atus or c o n d iti o n ; o r (2 ) th o se w h o p o ss e ss a c h a ra c ter istic th a t is c ap ab le o f b e in g c h a n g e db u t is o f s u c h f u n d a m e n ta l im p o rt a n c e th a t in d iv id u a ls s h o u ld n o t b e re q u ir e dto m o d if yit, e .g ., r el i gi on. ” Escobarv. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 363, 367 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “[T] he per s ecut i on c a n n o t b e w h a t d e f

in e s th e c o n to u rs o f

th e g ro u p .” Id .; se e a lso L u k w a g o v . A sh c ro f t, 32 9 F . 3d 15 7, 17 2 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) ( ho l ding “that the ‘part i cularsoci al group ’ m ustexis t i ndepende nt l yof the per s ecut i on s uffe r ed bythe appl i cantforas y l um . ”) . V el as quezGa r z o n a l s o a s s e rt s th a ts h e wa s t a r g e t e d“ a s a p e r s o n wh o wo u l db e ab l e t o p r o v i d e s o me serv ice to the F A R C . ” P et’r’ s B r. , 8 . T h e c h ara cterist ics o f su ch a g rou p , h o w ev er, are

“ f a r t o o v a g u e a n da ll e n c o m p a s s in g to . . . s e t th e p e ri m e te rs f o r a p ro te c te dg ro u p .” 2 E sco b ar, 41 7 F . 3 dat 36 8 ; cf. G o m ez -Z u luag a v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 7 F . 3 d3 3 0 , 3 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (r ec o g n izi n g so cial gro u p d ef ined as “ w o m en w h o h av e e sca p ed inv o lun tary s e rv itu d e a f

te r b e in g ab d u c te da n dc o n f in e db yth e F A R C ” ). In su m , w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s de cisi o n to d en yV elasq u ez -G arz o n ’s ap p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m a n dw i th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l r e s t s u p o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . We6

wi l l th e r e f

o r e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.