F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 2, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1623 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI A N o. A 96- 098- 249 CIELO CASTRO ARANGO, Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 22, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The immigr ation judge further found that Ara

ng o failed to e stab l i s h h er e ligibility for r elief 1 under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst To rt u re and Other Cruel, Unusual, or D eg rading Tr e atme nt o r Pun ishme nt ( CA T) , 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( c ). Th e B oa rd of Immi g ra tio n App e a ls aff irmed the holdingunder CAT. Arang o abandone d any CAT-re lated cla ims by failing to r aise the issue on appea l. See Sepulveda v. U .S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Pe tit ion er Ci el o C as tr o A rango ap pe al s f ro m an or de r by

the Bo ar d of Im m igration Appeals deny ing asy lum and further deny ing withho lding of rem oval un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a nd Nati on al it y Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 . No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. A rango, ana tiv e ci tiz enof Co lom bia , w as a dm itt ed

to the U nit ed

S ta te s a s a non- im m igr an t t our ist

on 2 1 Apr il 1999 . S he w as auth or iz ed to re m ai n inthe co untry onl y unt il 10 M ay

199 9, but

she did not le av e. A rango ap pli ed

f or a sy lum in the United States via an application dated 27 Septem ber 2002. O n 4 Dece m

ber 2002 the I m

m igr at ionand N at

ur al iz at ionS er

vic e se rv ed

A rango w ithanot ic e to ap pe ar ch arg in g h er wi th be in g a n a li en su bjec t t o re m ov al un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1227 (a )( 1) (B ). T he im

m igr at ionj udge ( IJ ) de nie d A rango’ s a sy lum appl ic at ion , be ca use it w as not ti m el y f ile d, and h el d th at

she f ai le d to e sta

bli sh h er e lig ibi lity fo r w ith hol din g r em ova l. T he I J or de re d he r re m ove d, and the B oard of 1 Im m igr at ionAppe al s ( BI A ) af fi rm ed .“We revie w only the [BIA’s] de cision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the I J ’s opinion.” 2 Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). I n this case the B IA expressly adopted the I J’s d e c isi on ; so we re vie w the I J’s a na ly sis a s if

it w e re the B IA’ s. 3 W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s and I J’ s le ga l de te rm inatio ns de novo and the ir 2 fa ct ua l de te rm inatio ns unde r the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st. A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F.3d 126 2, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001 ). U nder the highl y defer ential subs tantial evidence test, w e “ m

ust affirm the BIA ’ s decision if it is su pported byrea sonable, subs tanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” I d. (quot at ionom itt ed ). “ T o r ev er se the [ BI A ’ s and] I J’ s f ac t f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the r ec or d no t on ly

sup ports r ev er sa l, but co m pe ls i t .” Me n d o za v . U. S. At t ’y Ge n., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (em phasis add ed). A rango te sti fi ed

she f le d C olo m

bia be ca use she f eare d r ep ri sa ls b y

the Re vol uti onary

A rm ed F or ce s of

Co lom bia ( the F A RC ), ague ri lla

or ganiz at ion , f

or he r inv olv em en t w ithac onse rv at ive y outh gr oup. S he f urthe r te sti fi ed

that sh e fe ar s f uture pe rs ec uti on b y

the F A RC if

she w er e re m ove d to Co lom bia . A rango de sc ri be d th re e thr eate nin g ph one c al ls and thr eats m ad e by F A RC gue ri lla s w hil e she w orke d w iththe y outh gr oup in the Co lom bian c ountry sid e. S he a lso de sc ri be d on e inc ide nt at he r co lle ge gr ad ua tio n inw hic h sh e w as thr eate ne d by som eone who “ m ay

have been associated” w ith the FARC . And she believes her4

fathe r an d c ousi n w er e kil le d by the F A RC . T he I J no te d, how ev er , that the se be li efs were “ st eep edin sp ecu la ti on .” D ue to the thr eats, A rango le ft he r hom e an d m ove d te n ho ur s aw ay to liv e w i t h h e r s i s t e r f o r tw o w e e k s . D u r i n g th a tp e r i o ds h e d i dn o te x p e r i e n c e p r o b l e ms w iththe F A RC . S hortly

a ft er w ar d, A rango se cure d avis a an d le ft Co lom bia f or the U nit ed

S ta te s. A t A rango’ s a sy lum

he ar ing , the I J de te rm ine d th at he r as y lum

appl ic at ion wa s not tim ely

filed. An a lien m ay

apply for asy lum

if she “ dem onstrates by

clear and convin cing evidence that the application has been filed w ithin one y ear after the da te of

the a lie n’ s arr iva l i n th e U nit ed S ta te s. ” 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (2 )( B) . T he A tto rn ey G en er al , how ev er , m ay

e xc ep t f ro m thi s ti m ing r equir em en t those ap pli cants w ho d em onstrate “ ch an ge d c ir cum stanc es w hic h m at er ia lly a ff ec t the ap pli cant’ s e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum or e xtr ao rd inary

c ir cum stanc es r el at ing to the de lay in fi lin g an a

ppl ic at ion . ” I d. § 11 58( a) (2 )( D ). T he I J he ld tha t A rango did no t ad eq ua te ly dem on st rat e an ex cep ti on to th e o ne -y ear f il in g re qu ire m en t. 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(a)( 3) states that “ no court shall h ave j urisdictio n” to review the A tto rn ey

G en er al ’ s de te rm inatio ns r eg ar din g th e fi lin g e xc ep tio ns. W e ha ve he ld tha t se ct ion115 8( a) (3 ) div es ts u s of j ur isd ic tio n “ to r ev ie wade ci sio n regarding whether an alien com plied with the one-y ear tim e lim it or established5

extraordinary

circum stances that would excuse his un tim ely filing.” Me ndoza, 327 F. 3d at 12 87. A sid e fr om

the j ur isd ic tio na l i ssu e, A rango fa ile d to of fe r ar gum en t on w he the r the I J e rr ed

in de te rm ini ng tha t he r ap pli catio n w as not ti m el y . S he the re fo re abandon s th at

iss ue on a

ppe al . S ee S ep ulv ed a v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 401 F. 3d 1 226, 122 8 n. 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( co nc lud ing that w he re pe tit ion er f ai ls t o rai se arg um en ts reg ard in g i ss ue on ap pe al , th atis su e is de em edab an do ne d) . A cc or din gly , A rango’ s pe tit ionf or r ev ie won h er

a sy lum c la im is dis m iss ed . Aran go als o a rg ue s t ha t h er re m ov al sh ou ldbe wit hh el d. 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)( A) prohibit s the Attorney Ge neral fr om

rem ovin g Arango to a country if her “ life or f

reedom would be threatened in that country because of [ her] rac e, religion, nationality , m em bership in a particular social group, or political opin ion.” Under this theory

of relief , A rango “ bears the burden of dem onstrating that [she] m or e- lik el y -than- not

w oul d be pe rs ec ute d or

tor tur ed upo n [ he r] r et

ur n to the country in questio n.” Mendoza, 327 F. 3d at 128 7. A rango could h ave car ried her bur de n ha d sh e ad equa te ly sho w n e ith er

inc ide nts of

a ct ua l pa st p er se cu tio n ona protected ground o r the likelihood of future per secution up on her return. T he BIA and IJ held that Arango d em onstrated neither.6

W e ha ve sa id tha t pe rs ec uti on i s an “ ex tr em e co nc ep t. ” S ep ulv ed a, 401 F. 3d at 123 1. D em onstrating past persecution requires showing “ m ore than a fe w iso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, ” an d “ m er e hara ssm en t doe s no t am ount

to pe rs ec uti on. ” I d. ( ci tin g G onz al ez v. Re no, 212 F . 3d 1 338, 1355 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ). I n S ep ulv ed a, w e de te rm ine d th at w he re the pe tit ion er

and her fam ily

rec eived threatening pho ne calls fr om guerillas and a bom

b was planted at petitioner’ s place of em ploym ent, the evidence w as not sufficient to ov erturn the IJ’ s denial of asy lum

and withholdi ng rem oval. Id. at 1229, 1231 . W e stated that “ m en ac ing pho ne c al ls and thr eats. . . do n ot r ise to the le ve l of pa st p er se cu tio n t h at wo u l dco m

p el re v er s al o f t h e I J ’s d ec i s i o n .” In a s i m i l arwa y, th e F AR C’s thr eats and m en ac ing pho ne c al ls t o A rango an d he r fam ily do n ot am ount

to the kindof past persecution necessary to reverse the IJ’ s decision. And other incidents to which she testified, such as the death of her father and cousin, we re described by

the IJ as “ unclear, ” “ steeped in speculation ,” and m ere “ conje cture. ” T he se f ac ts d o no t compel

r ev er sa l. A n a lie n w ho c an not

a de qua te ly

de m onstrate pa st p er se cu tio n m ay sti ll be entitled to withho lding of rem oval if she can dem onstrate that rem oval will cause a future threat to her life or f reedom on a protected ground. Mendoza, 327 F.3d at7

1287 . A ny

suc h de m onstratio n f

ai ls, how ev er , “ if

the I J f ind s th at the a lie n c oul d av oi d a fut ur e th reat by relo cat in g t o a no th er p artof [ he r] cou nt ry .” Id . A rango fa ile d to de m onstrate that sh e co uld not a voi d pe rs ec uti on b y re loc at ing to an oth er

part of Co lom bia . T he I J f

ound that, a lth oughgue ri lla groups like the FA RC have significant influence in the rural ar eas of Colom bia, their influence is considerably less in the count ry ’ s m aj or cities. In fac t, the r ecord below shows that Ar ango did not experience problem s during the period in which she le ft he r hom e an d li ve d w ithhe r sis te r. T he I J f urthe r fo und that, pr ior

to le av ing Co lom

bia f or the U . S. , A rango did

not a de qua te ly

tr y to “ av oid thi s ge ogr ap hic al sourc e of

dange r, ” by

m ovi ng t o anothe r part

of Co lom bia . W e ha ve sa id tha t “ w he re the a lle ge d pe rs ec uto rs are not a ff ili at ed w iththe gov er

nm en t, it is n ot unr ea sona

ble to re qui re ar ef

uge e w ho h as an in te rn al r es ettle m en t al te rn at ive in [h er ] ow n c ountry to pur sue that op tio n be fo re se ek ing pe rm an en t re se ttl em en t i n th e U nit ed S ta te s. ” Ma zari eg os v . U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 1327 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . O n th is r ec or d, A rango fa ile d to de m onstrate that i t i s m or e- lik el y -than- not

that sh e w ill suf

fe r pe rs ec uti on u

pon re m ova l be ca

use she did not de m onstrate that sh e co uld not have a voi de d pe rs ec uti on b y r el oc at ing w ith in he r co untry . A cc or din gly , w e de ny A rango’ s pe tit ionon w ith hol din g r em ova l.8

Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g, w e dis m iss the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wf or the a sy lum c l a i m an dd e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r th e w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l c l a i m. D IS MI SS E D in part

and D E N IE D in part .