FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 4, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13355 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 96- 275- 209 & A 96- 275- 210 S A T U R I A N A R V A E Z , E Z E Q U I E L R U I Z P E R D O M O , L A U R A N A R V A E Z P E R D O M O , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 4, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S aturi a N arvaez , her husband E ze qu i el P er do m o R ui z, and thei r daugh t erNar vaez does not challeng e the B IA’s dec ision to deny her relief under the CAT, a nd 1 there fore , she has a

bandoned theissue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 L a ur aP e r dom o N a rva e z , pe t i t i on thi s c our tt o r e vi e w the de c i s i on of the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de ny i ng N a rva e z ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 , 8 C .F .R § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) . B e c a us e the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. N arvaez and h erfa m i l y, ci t i ze ns of C ol om bi a, w er e a dm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t a t e s a s noni m m i gr a ntvi s i t or s . T he y r e m a i ne d be y ond the e xpi r a t i on da t e s of thei r vi sa s a nd the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty i ss ued N ot i ce s t o A pp ea r, c h a r g in g e a c h w ith r e m a in in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s lo n g e rth a n p e rm itte d , in v io la tio n o f

I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . In her app l i ca t i on , N arvaez re qu es t ed as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al ba s e d on pe r s e c ut i on s he s uf f e r e d due t o he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on, a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e ( “ C A T ” ) . N a rva e z de t a i l e d the 1 ci rc um st ance s of herca se for a sy l um i n an att ac hm entt o h erappl i ca t i on : N arvaez w a s ac o m m u n ity le a d e ra n d h a d w o rk e d w ith o r g a n iz a tio n s c a lle d S e c u r ity F r o n ts a n d th e C o lle c tiv e W o rk - A c tio n M o v e m e n t in th e C o lo m b ia n L ib e r a l P a r ty . N arvaez spok e outagai nstthe gu erri l l as fr om the C ol um bi an R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F o r c e s ( “F A R C ” ) , w h o w o u ld ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f p o o rf a m ilie s in h e rc o m m u n ity3

b y o f f e r in g m o n e y f

o rth e s e rv ic e s o f

y o u n g m e n . O n A ug ust15 , 20 02 , N arvaez and a co-w orker w er e a tt ac ked b y three ho od ed, heavi l y a rm ed m en w ho cl ai m ed t o b e m em bers of the F A R C urban m i l i t i a. A s s he tri ed t o scr ea m for hel p, on e of the m en grabbed h erby the neck and t ol d h ert o shu tup or el se she w ou l d b e ki l l ed. S he w as throw n t o the fl oo r, spatup on , and t ol d t o d i sc on t i nu e herse m i nars agai nstthe F A R C . N arvaez hal t ed the c l a s s e s f

oraboutaw e e k, butr e turne d t o the c om m uni ty c e nt e ron A ugus t23, 2002, t o f

i nd tha ti tha d be e n va nda l i z e d. T hr e e hoode d m e n w e r e pr e s e nta nd thr e a t e ne d t o burn dow n the c e nt e r . A ttha tpoi nt , N a rva e z r a n t o the pol i c e , but w a s t ol d tha tthe pol i c e w oul d notpur s ue the m a tt e runl e s s s he ha d the na m e s of the m e n. T ha tni ghts he r e c e i ve d aphone c a l l f r om aF A R C m e m be r , thr e a t e ni ng h e ra n d w a rn in g th a t h e k n e w w h e r e h e rd au g h te rs tu d ie d . N a rv a e z te m p o r a r ily m o v e d h e rf

a m ily to af

r ie n d ’s h o u s e b e f

o r e s e e k in g r e f

u g e in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A tthe re m ov al hear i ng before an Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) , N arvaez conceded remo vabi l i ty. H ert es t i m on y w as consi st entw i th the i nci dent s des cr i bed i n he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. N a rva e z s t a t e d tha ts he r e m a i ne d i n C ol om bi af orone m on th aft erthe i nci dent s, and thather husband di d n otj oi n h eri n the U ni t ed S t at es un t i l three m on ths af

t erthe l as ti nci dent . N arvaez adm i tt ed thatno thi ng happ ened to h e rf a m ily d u r in g th a t tim e . S h e a ls o a c k n o w le d g e d th a t s h e h a d tw o a d u lt c h ild r e n w h o r e m a in e d in C o lo m b ia .4

T he I J c onc l ude d tha tN a rva e z ha d f a i l e d t o m e e the rbur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng th a t s h e h a d s u f

f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a d aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n in C ol om bi aon a c c ountof the i rpol i t i c a l opi ni on. T he I Jba s e d thi s de c i s i on on

“ subst ant i al and m at er i al evi dent i ary gaps i n the un derl yi ng as yl um cl ai m . . . . ” A cc ordi ng t o the IJ , N arvaez “ fa i l ed t o p re se ntt o thi s c ou rta c re di bl e, bel i evabl e, or pl ausi bl e s etof fa ct s und er l yi ng her a sy l um cl ai m on behal f of her se l f, her hus ba nd, a nd daught e r . ” T he I J a l s o rul e d tha tbe c aus e N a rva e z di d notm e e tthe le s s e rs ta n d a r d f

o ra s y lu m , h e rc la im s f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l f

a ile d . N a rva e z appe a l e d, a l l e gi ng tha ts he ha d e s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a nd a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . S he al so subm i tt ed addi t i on al evi dence re l at i ng t o ano ther daugh t er ’ s a sy l um appl i ca t i on . T he B IA concl ud ed that N a rva e z ha d pr ove n, a tm os t , tha ts he ha d be e n ha r a s s e d buts uc h a c t i on di d not r is e to th e le v e l o f

p e r s e c u tio n . T h e B I A f u r th e rc o n c lu d e d th a t N a rv a e z f a ile d to e s t abl i s h aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e he rf e a rw a s not o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n ab l e , a s th e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e d e mo n s tr a t i n g th a tth e FA RC w o u ld s in g le h e ro u t f

o rp e r s e c u tio n . I n s te a d , th e B I A d e te rm in e d th a t it w a s lik e ly thatshe c ou l d saf

el y r eturn b ec ause she had been ou tof the coun tryfor m ore than tw o y e a r s , a n d h e rh u s b a n d a n d o th e rf a m ily m e m b e r s h a d r e m a in e d in C o lo m b ia w i tho uti nci dentfol l ow i ng her f l i gh t . A dd i t i on al l y, the B IA no t ed thatN arvaez ha d s ubm i tt e d ne w e vi de nc e on appe a l . E xpl a i ni ng tha ti tc oul d onl y c ons i de rthe5

evi dence cont ai ned i n the re cord w hen i tw as before the IJ , the B IA di sm i ss ed N arv aez’s app eal , fi n d i n g th atN arv aez fail ed est ab l i sh th atsh e h ad su ffered p ast p e r s e c u tio n . O n appe a l , N a rva e z c ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr one ous l y he l d tha ts he ha d not suff er ed pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . N arvaez a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr e d by notc ons i de r i ng the a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e s he p r e s e n te d . B e c au s e th e B I A d i d n o te x p r e s s l y a d o p ta n y p a r to f th e I J ’ s o p i n i o n , we r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n . S e e A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2001) . T he B I A ’ s l e ga l de t e rm i na t i ons a r e r e vi e w e d de novo. D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). D et erm i nat i on s of f ac t“ ar e re v iew ed u n d erth e s u b stan ti al ev id en ce test, an d w e m u st af firm th e B IA ’s de c i s i on i f

i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c o r d c o n s id e r e d a s aw h o le .” I d . a t 8 1 8 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A . A s y l um T he A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nta s y l um i f a n a l i e n m e e t s the I NA ’ s d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ r e f u g e e . ” I NA § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h e I NA d e f in e s “r e f u g e e ” a s f

o llo w s : [A ] n y p erso n w h o i s o u t si d e an y co u n try o f su ch p erso n ’ s n at i o n al i ty .

. . a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e or un w i l l i ng t o avai l hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun try6

be c aus e of

pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c o u n t o f

. . . p o litic a l o p in io n . . . . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) & ( B ) . T he as yl um appl i ca ntbear s the bu rden of prov i ng re fugee s t atus. A l N ajj ar , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 . T o m e e t th is b u r d e n , th e a lie n m u s t, w ith s p e c if ic a n d c r e d ib le e vi de nc e , e s t abl i s h ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof as t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f

a c t or , or (2) a“ w el l -f

ou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w i l l cause s uch future p ersecu t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a), (b ); A l N ajj ar, 2 5 7 F . 3 d at1 2 8 7 ; see al so S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 - 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ [P ] er se cut i on ” i s a n “ ‘ extre m e c on ce pt , ’ re qu i ri ng ‘ m ore than a few i sol at ed i nc i de nt s of

ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on, ’ a nd tha t‘ m e r e ha r a s s m e ntdoe s not am ou ntt o p er se cut i on . ’ ” S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 31 . (c i t at i on om i tt ed). A fe ar o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n is w e ll f o u n d e d if

it “is s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le .” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A ft era tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s de c i s i on tha tN a rva e z f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. T he i nc i de nt s of

w hi c h N a rva e z c om pl a i ns m a y a m ountt o ha r a s s m e nt , butthe y do not ri se t o the l evel of pers ec ut i on . N arvaez di d n otpres entt es t i m on y thatshe or her fa m i l y had suff

er ed any i nj uri es fr om the i nd i vi du al s c l ai m i ng t o b e m em bers of F A R C . N ordi d s he pr ovi de t e s t i m ony t o c orr obor a t e F A R C ’ s de s truc t i on of the7

com m un i ty c ent er , or t o exp l ai n w hy the po l i ce re fuse d t o t ake her r eporteven th o u g h s h e h a d w o rk e d w ith th e p o lic e th r o u g h th e S e c u r ity F r o n t. S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s u p p o r ts th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t N a rv a e z d id no tes t abl i sh a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future per se cut i on . A l tho ug h N arvaez m ay have a s ubj ec t i vel y genui ne fe arof future per se cut i on , she di d n otpres entevi dence th a t s u g g e s te d a n o b

je c tiv e f e a r . A f te rN a rv a e z le f

t C o lo m b iaw ith h e rd au g h te r , h e rh u s b a n d r e m a i n e d i n th e c o u n try f o rs e v e r a l m o n th s wi th o u ti n c i d e n t , a n d two of N a rva e z ’ s a dul tc hi l dr e n r e m a i n i n C ol om bi a . R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 59 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). M oreover, N arvaez fa i l ed t o p re se ntevi dence that w o u ld in d ic a te F A R C w o u ld r e s u m e its h a r a s s m e n t if s h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . B . W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al A n al i en i s onl y e l i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al t o a coun tryi f s he ca n de m ons tr a t e tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n not ” s he w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d ort or tur e d upon bei ng re turned t o h ercoun try . A l i m v. G on za l es , 44 6 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 55 (11th C i r. 2006) . T he s t a nda r d f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l i s “ m or e s tr i nge nt ” tha n the st andard for as yl um . S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 32 . T hu s, because N arvaez fa i l ed t o p rove thatshe a nd her f am i l y a re ent i t l ed t o asy l um , she c anno tm ee tthe m ore s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. C . N ew E vi dence F i nal l y, the B IA prop er l y r ef used t o con si der new evi dence thatN arvaez8

s oughtt o i nc l ude w i th he rbr i e f s uppl e m e nt i ng he rnot i c e of appe a l of

the de c i s i on of the I J . A s a n appe l l a t e body , the B I A m a y note nga ge i n f i ndi ngs of

f a c ti n the c o u r s e o f d e c id in g ap p e a ls . 8 C .F .R § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d ) ( 1 ) , ( d ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) . A p a r ty s e e k in g to i n tro d u ce fu rth er ev i d en ce, w h i ch w o u l d req u i re ad d i t i o n al fi n d i n g s o f fact , m u st f ile am o tio n r e q u e s tin g th e B I A to r e m a n d th e c a s e to a n I J . 8 C .F .R § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) . N a rv a e z f ile d n o s u c h m o tio n , a n d , th e r e f o r e , th e B I A c o rr e c tly r e f u s e d to c o n s id e rth e a d d itio n a l in f o rm a tio n N a rv a e z p r e s e n te d . A c c or di ngl y , f

orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by subst ant i al evi dence, and w e DE NY the pe t i t i on.