### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 7, 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. 04- 12613 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 95- 255- 655 M A T I L D E A G U D E L O , 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a t i l de A gude l o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , pe t i t i ons , thr ough coun se l , thi s C ou rtfor r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) orderThe IJalso denied relief pursuant to the United Nations Conv ent i o n Against Tortureand 1 Other Crue l, Inhuman, or DegradingTreatment or Punishment, but Agudelo is not raisingthat issue on appeal. 2 af fi rm i ng w i tho utop i ni on the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( IJ ) dec i si on denyi ng her ap p l i cat i o n fo r asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al u n d er th e IN A . B ecau se 1 A g u d e lo ’s r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s c o m m e n c e d a f te rA p r il 1 , 1 9 9 7 , th e e f f e c tiv e d a te of the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f orm a nd I m m i gr a ntR e s pons i bi l i tyA c tof 1996, P ub. L . N o. 104- 208, 110 S t a t . 3009 ( 1996) ( “ I I R I R A ” ) , thi s c a s e i s gove rne d by the perm anentprov i si on s of the IN A , as am ended b y I IR IR A . S ee A nt i po va v. U ni t ed S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 1259, 1264 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ; G onz a l e z - O r ope z av. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G en. , 32 1 F . 3d 13 31 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). A gu del o argues tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n f

i ndi ng tha ts he w a s i ne l i gi bl e f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l be c aus e s he s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on and rel i gi ou s a ct i vi t i es . A gu del o argues thatshe f urther e st abl i shed a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n o n th e s a m e b a s e s . W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on i n thi s c as e, no tthe B IA ’ s, because the B IA af fi rm ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on w i tho utop i ni on , there by m aki ng thatthe fi nal agency de t e rm i na t i on. S e e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 1( a ) ( 7) ; M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 84 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). T he IJ ’ s f ac tual det erm i nat i on s are re vi ew ed u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, a n d w e “m u s t a f f irm th e [ I J ’s ] d e c is io n if it isIn Bonner v. City of P richa rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)(en ba nc), this Court 2 adopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all o f t hede c isi on s o f the form er F if th C ircuit ha nde d down p ri or

to the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 3 supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 83 -84 (11 th C i r. 2001) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I ti s the f a c ttr i e r ’ s duty t o de t e rm i ne c r e di bi l i ty , a nd w e m a y n o t s u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e I J w ith r e s p e c t to c r e d ib ility fi nd i ng s. V as qu ez -M on dragon v. IN S , 56 0 F . 2d 12 25 , 12 26 (5th C i r. 19 77 ). 2 U nd erthi s hi gh l y def

er ent i al st andard of revi ew , the IJ ’ s dec i si on m ustbe deferre d to a s s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , u n le s s th e e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a s onabl e f

a c tf i nde rt o f i nd othe rw i s e . I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n .1 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 n .1 , 1 1 7 L .E d .2 d 3 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e a ls o I N A § 2 4 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “ a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny re as on abl e a dj ud i ca t or w ou l d b e c om pel l ed t o con cl ud e t o the contrary ”) . I . A s yl um A ny a l i e n w ho arr 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 y appl y f or as yl um , w hi ch the A tt orney G ener al (“ A G ”) has di sc re t i on t o g ranti f the al i en m e e ts th e d e f

in itio n o f a“r e f u g e e .” A l N a

jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 . A “r e f u g e e ” is : [ A ]n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try o f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity or , i n the c a s e of

ape r s on ha vi ng no na t i ona l i ty , i s out s i de a ny c o u n try in w h ic h s u c h p e r s o n la s t h ab itu a llyr e s id e d , an d w h o is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n dis u n ab le o ru n w illin g to a v a il4

hi m s e l f orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c aus e of p e r s e c u t i on or a w e l l - f ou n d e d f

e ar of p e r s e c u t i on on ac c ou n t of 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 p ol i t i c alop i n i on . . .. I d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a nt c a rr i e s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory “ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus a nd the r e by e s t abl i s hi ng a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty . I d. ( c i t i ng 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) ) . I f s he m e e t s tha tbur de n, the A G m ayexer ci se hi s di sc re t i on t o g rantas yl um . Id. H er e, because the IJ de t e rm i ne d tha tA gude l o f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um , he di d not a d d r e s s w h e th e rh e w o u ld e x e r c is e h is d is c r e tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e n e e d o n ly a d d r e s s w h e th e rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e f in d in g th a t A g u d e lo f

a ile d to show st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um , i . e. , pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h e rr e lig io n o rp o litic a l o p in io n . T o est abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty, the al i en m ustes t abl i sh, w i th speci fi c, det ai l ed, and credi bl e e vi dence (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof her pol i t i ca l op i ni on , re l i gi ou s bel i ef , or other s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed f e a r ” th a t h e rp o litic a l o p in io n , r e lig io u s b e lie f , o ro th e rs ta tu to r ilylis te d f a c to rw ill c au s e f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . A l N a jj a r , 2 5 7 F. 3 d a t1 2 8 7 ; s e e a l s o 8 C. F. R. § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) . “ [ A ] n appl i c a ntm us tde m ons tr a t e tha thi s orhe rf e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i s s ubj e c t i ve l y ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e . ” S e pul ve da , 378 F . 3d a t1264 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . E s tab lis h in g an e x u s b e tw e e n th e s ta tu to r ily5

l i st ed fa ct or and the fe ar ed pers ec ut i on “ re qu i re s the al i en t o p re se ntspec i fi 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 s i ngl e d outf or p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f ” th e s ta tu to r ilylis te d f

a c to r . D - M u h u m e d v . A tt’y G e n ., 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). I f th e a lie n d e m o n s tr a te s p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , s h e is p r e s u m e d to h a v e aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on unl e s s the gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthe p resu m p t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b )(1 ). If, h o w ev er, th e al i en d o es n o test ab l i sh pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, s he be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on by s how i ng tha t( 1) s he f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on he rr e l i gi on, p o litic a l o p in io n , o ro th e rs ta tu to r ilylis te d f a c to r ; ( 2 ) th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le pos s i bi l i ty s he w i l l s uf

f e rpe r s e c ut i on i f

r e m ove d t o he rna t i ve c ountry ; a nd ( 3) s he coul d n otavoi d p er se cut i on by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther partof her c ou ntry , i f und er a l l th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s i tw o u l d b e r e a s o n ab l e t o e x p e c tr e l o c a t i o n . Se e 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2), (3)( i ). D es pi t e hercl ai m s t o the contrary , A gu del o h as no tshow n thatshe has been pe r s e c ut e d, tha ts uc h pe r s e c ut i on w a s ba s e d on he rpol i t i c a l opi ni on orr e l i gi ous b e lie f s , o rth a t s h e h a s aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n th o s e b a s e s . H e rc l a i m c e nt e r s a r ound he rr e f us a l t o gi ve m e m be r s of ague r i l l agr oup i nf orm a t i on abouthe re m pl oy e r . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s c onc l us i on6

tha ta ny pr obl e m s A gude l o s uf f e r e d a r os e outof

he rf a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e w i th the grou p, no tou tof her pol i t i ca l op i ni on or re l i gi ou s bel i ef s. A s t o h erfe arof future pe r s e c ut i on, A gude l o ha s note s t abl i s he d ( 1) tha ts he f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on h e rp o litic a l o p in io n o rr e lig io u s b e lie f s , ( 2 ) th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility tha ts he w i l l s uf

f e rpe r s e c ut i on i f

r e m ove d t o he rna t i ve c ountry , or( 3) tha ts he coul d n otavoi d p er se cut i on by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther partof C ol om bi a. T h erefo re, b ecau se A g u d el o fai l s t o est ab l i sh th atsh e su ffered p ast pers ec ut i on or a “ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” of f

uture pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof her p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n o r rel i g i o u s b el i ef, h er asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. I I . W i t h h ol d i n g of

R e m oval T he I J ’ s f

a c tua l de t e rm i na t i on tha ta n a l i e n i s note nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l m us tbe uphe l d i f i ti s s upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . S e e A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1283- 84. A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f he c a n s how tha thi s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, n a t i o n a l i ty , m e m b e r s h i p i n ap a rt i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . I f “a n ap p lic a n t is u n ab le to m e e t th e ‘w e llf ounde d f e a r ’ s t a nda r d f

ora s y l um , [ s ] he i s ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude d f r om qua l i f

y i ng f or e i the ra s y l um orw i thhol di ng of de port a t i on. ” A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1292- 93 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .7

A s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , A g u d e lo f a ile d to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e llfoun ded fearof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof on e of the fi ve st atut ory f ac t ors s uf f i c i e ntt o s upporthe ra s y l um c l a i m . S he of f e r s no a r gum e ntt o a voi d the g en eral p recl u si o n fro m w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al i n th i s si tu at i o n . A cco rd i n g l y, s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s r e j e c t i on of

A gude l o’ s c l a i m f

orw i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA . C on c l u s i on B as ed o n a r ev iew o f th e r ec o rd an d th e p ar ti es ’ b rief s, w e d en y A g u d elo ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.