### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 12609 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 95- 553- 299 L U I S M I G U E L H E RN A N D E Z E C H E V E R R I , P e titio n e r , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Echeverri has aba ndoned review of ( 1) his claim he a nd his family

were persecute d 1 based on the ir membership in the social group of cattle and landowners, and ( 2) the IJ ’s dec ision to deny him CAT relief, be causehe failed to raise theseclaims on appe al. See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (statingthe petitioner a bandoned his CAT claim bec ause hedid not raise it in his appellate brie f). 2 L ui s M i gue l H e rna nde z E c he ve rr i pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ (B IA ’ s) d eci si o n affi rm i n g th e i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’ s (IJ’ s) or de rf i ndi ng hi m r e m ovabl e a nd de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(I N A ), and the U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on on T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e nt o rP u n is h m e n t ( C A T ) , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) . E c he ve rr i a s s e rt s the e vi de nc e s upport s the f i ndi ng he s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a nd ha s aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof apr ot e c t e d gr ound, na m e l yi m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, a nd thus the I Je rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s r e que s t s f or as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . B ec ause E cheverr i has f ai l ed t o sho w he w as 1 pers ec ut ed or has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound, w e de nyhi s pe t i t i on. W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl ytha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e x te n t th e B I A e x p r e s s lya d o p ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n s o f a ra s th e B I A a d o p t s th e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g , we r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s w e ll. I d. H e r e , w e r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on be c aus e the B I A e x p r e s s lya d o p te d it.3

T o th e e x te n t th e I J ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e do n ale g a l d e te rm in a tio n , r e v ie w is d e n o v o . Mo h a m m e d

v . A s h c r o

ft , 261 F . 3d 1244, 1247–48 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he I J ’ s f a c tu a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n s a r e r e v i e we du n d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , a n d we

“ m us ta f f i rm the [ I J ’ s ] de c i s i on i f i ti s ‘ s upport e d byr e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd prob at i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ’ ” A l N aj j ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 12 83 –8 4 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he subst ant i al evi dence t es ti s “ defe re nt i al ” and do es no tal l ow “ ‘ re -w ei gh [i ng ] the evi dence’ fr om sc ra t ch. ” M az ar i egos v . O

f f i c e of U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 2 4 1 F. 3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi tt e d ) . “ To r e v e r s e th e I J ’s f

a c t f in d in g s , w e m u s t f

in dth a t th e r e c o r dn o t o n lys u p p o rts re vers al , bu tcom pel s i t . ” Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287 ( c ons i de r i ng w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im ) . T h e f

a c t th e r e c o r dm a ys u p p o rt ac o n tr a ryc o n c lu s io n is in s u f f ic ie n t to ju s tif

yr e v e r s a l. A de

fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 2 4 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a yappl yf or a s y lu m . 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne yG e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt a s y l u m i f th e a l i e n me e t s th e I N A ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f a“ r e f u g e e . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n yc o u n tryin w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l yr e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a4

w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on o n a c c o u n t o f r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c al opi ni on . 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntc a rr i e s the b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g s ta tu to ry“r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . A l

N aj j ar , 2 5 7 F. 3 da t1 2 8 4 . To es t abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty, the al i en m ust , w i th speci fi c and cr edi bl e e vi dence, es t abl i sh (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a

“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” the s t a tut or i l yl i s t e d f a c t orw i l l c aus e s uc h f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), ( b ) . “D e m o n s tr a tin g s u c h ac o n n e c tio n r e q u ir e s th e a lie n to pr e s e nts pe c i f

i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng agood r e a s on t o f e a rtha the ors he w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof such an op i ni on [or other s t atut ory fa ct or] . ” A l

N aj j ar , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s , c ita tio n , a n de m p h a s is om i tt ed). A n asy l um appl i cantm ayno tshow m er el y thathe has apo l i t i ca l o p in io n , b u t m u s t s h o w h e w a s p e r s e c u te db e c au s e o f th a t o p in io n . IN

S v. E l i a sZac ar i as , 1 1 2 S . C t. 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . A n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t’s r e f u s a l to c o o p e r a te w ith g u e r illa s is n o t s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w p e r s e c u tio n b a s e do n p o litic a l o p in io n . See Sanc hezv . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( di s c us s i ng w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l) . A n a l i e n w ho ha s nots how n pa s tpe r s e c ut i on m a ys t i l l be e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um if h e c a n d e m o n s tr a te af

u tu r e th r e a t to h is lif

e o rf r e e d o m o n ap r o te c te dg r o u n din hi s c ou ntry . 8 C . F . R . §§ 20 8. 13 (b)( 2), 20 8. 16 (b)( 2). T o est abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed5

f e a r , “a n ap p lic a n t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is o rh e rf e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n is subj ec t i vel y genui ne and o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. ” A l N aj j ar , 2 5 7 F .3 da t 1 2 8 9 .

“ A n i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on , w hether c orre ct l y or i ncorrec t l y a ttri bu t ed, m ay c ons t i tut e agr ound f

oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pol i t i c a l pe r s e c ut i on w i thi n the m eani ng of the IN A . ” I d. (quo t at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T o qua l i f yf orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A , a n a l i e n m us ts how hi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d, i f r e turne d t o hi s c ountry , on a c c ountof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l o p in io n . Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287. “ A n a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon hi s r e turn t o the coun tryi n q uest i on . ” I

d. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s de c i s i on tha tE c he ve rr i w a s not e n title d to a s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A . E v e n if th e e v e n ts E cheverr i t es t i fi ed t o con st i tut e pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on, E c he ve rr i ’ s c l a i m f a i l s be c aus e the r e c or d doe s notde m ons tr a t e a ny s pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d e vi de nc e the pe r s e c ut i on w a s ba s e d on ac tual ori m pute d pol i t i c al opi ni on . T ho ug h E cheverr i as se rt s he s uffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on base d o n an i mp u t e dp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n b e c au s e h i s f a th e r , a f t e ri n f o rmi n g th e Co l o mb i a n a rmy o f th e FA RC’ s p r e s e n c e o n th e f a mi l yf a rm, w a s v i e w e da s a n e n e myo f th e FA RC, n o th in g in h is te s tim o n yd e m o n s tr a te s th is n e x u s . T h o u g h h e te s tif ie dh is f a m ily6

d i d n o ta g r e e w i th th e i d e a s o f th e g u e r i l l a s , h i s t e s t i mo n yi n d i c a t e s th e FA RC k ille d h is f

a th e r , u n c le s , a n d c o u s in s to ta k e “r e v e n g e o n th e m ” b e c au s e o f th e ir r e f us a l t o c oope r a t e w i th the i rde m a nds c onc e rni ng the f a m i l yf a rm , notbe c aus e of a n yp o litic a l o p in io n . R e f u s in g to c o o p e r a te w ith th e F A R C d o e s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly c r e a te an e x u s b e tw e e n p e r s e c u tio n a n dp o litic a l o p in io n . See Sa nchez , 39 2 F . 3d at 4 3 8 . E c he ve rr i t e s t i f

i e d he a nd hi s f

a m i l ys y m pa thi z e d w i th the c ons e rva t i ve party. M er el y havi ng thi s s ym pathy i s notenou gh t o con st i tut e per se cut i on base d o n a n a c tu a l o rim p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . Se e i d. T h u s , e v e n if th e e v e n ts E cheverr i t es t i fi ed t o con st i tut e pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on, s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tE c he ve rr i di d not s uf f e rthi s pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound. A s E ch ev erri d i dn o test ab l i sh e l i gi bi l i tyf

ora s y l um , w hi c h c a rr i e s al ow e rbur de n of pr oof , hi s w i thhol di ng of rem o v al cl ai m al so fai l s. See Men do za , 3 2 7 F .3 da t 1 2 8 7 . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.