FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 16, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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- 13002 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 230- 339 & A 95- 230- 340 G E R M A N B O H O R Q U E Z , M A R G A R I T A S A N C H E Z , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e ti ti on forR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 16, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G er m an B oh orqu ez and M ar gari t a S anchez peti ti on for r evi ew of the B oardPetitioners make no argument reg ardingrelief under theUnited Nations Convention 1 and havethus abandone d this iss ue. See Sepulve da v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 o f I m m ig ra ti o n s A p p ea ls’s (“B IA ”) d ec isio n affirm in g th e I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s ( “ I J ” ) or de rf

i ndi ng the m r e m ovabl e a nd de ny i ng the i ra ppl i c a ti on fora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der both the Im m i grati on and N ati on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) a nd the U ni t e d N a ti ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC r ue l , I nhum a n, or D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt . B ohor que z a nd S a nc he z a r gue tha t( 1) the 1 B IA erred i n affi rm i n g th e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n b ecau se B ohor que z ha d pr e s e nt e d s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e t o s uppor thi s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l c l a i m ; a nd ( 2) the B I A e rr e d i n de ny i ng the i ra ppl i c a ti ons for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al beca use they had prov i ded evi dence that w ou l d com pel a r ea sonabl e fac t fi nd ert o con cl ud e thatB oh orqu ez had est abl i shed p astp ersecu ti o n o r a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu ti o n . S p eci fi cal l y, pet i ti on er s argue thatB oh orqu ez suff er ed pastpers ec ut i on and h as a w el l -fou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on beca use of threa t eni ng ph on e c al l s, and an att em pt ed ab d u c ti o n b y me mb e r s o f FA RC. DI S C US S I ON 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 y a ppl y for a s y lu m . T o e s tab lis h a s y lu m e lig ib ility , 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 uti on on a c c ountof as t a tut or i l y l i s t e d fa c t or , or3

(2) a“ w el l -fou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w i l l ca use s uch future pers ec ut i on . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), ( b) ; s e e A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “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 fa c t s s how i ng agood r e a s on t o fe a rtha the ors he w i l l be s i ngl e d outforpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof [ as t a tut or y fa c t or ] . ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d at12 87 (i nt er nal qu ot ati on m arks and ci t ati on om i tt ed). A n asy l um appl i ca ntm ay no tshow m er el y thathe has apo l i ti ca l op i ni on , bu tm ustshow thathe w as pe r s e c ut e d be c a us e of

tha topi ni on. I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 483 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . W e r ec og ni ze that“ ‘ pers ec ut 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 nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on , ’ and that ‘[m ]ere h ar as sm en t d o es n o t am o u n t t o p er se cu ti o n .’ ” S ep u lv ed a v . U .S . A tt ’y Ge n . , 4 0 1 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t a ti o n o m i tt e d ) . I n S e p u l v e d a , we h el d th atm en aci n g t el ep h o n e cal l s an d th reat s t o th e al i en , h er fam i l y m em b ers, a n d c o lle a g u e s d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . I d . A n a l i e n w ho ha s nots how n pa s tpe r s e c uti on m a y s ti l l be e nti t l e d t o a s y l um i f he c a n de m ons tr a t e af

utur e thr e a ti n hi s c ountr y t o hi s l i fe orf r e e dom on a prot ec t ed grou nd . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2). T o est abl i sh a w el l -fou nd ed fe ar , “ an a p 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 rfe a ro f p e r s e c u tio n is s u bje c tiv e ly ge nui ne a nd obj e c ti ve l y r e a s onabl e . ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1289. H ow e ve r , i f the4

I J f in d s th a t th e a lie n c o u ld a v o id af u tu r e th r e a t b y r e lo c a tin g to a n o th e rp a r t o f h is c ountr y a nd i ti s r e a s onabl e t o do s o, he c a nnotde m ons tr a t e aw e l l - founde d fe a rof pers ec ut i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 1)-( 2). T o qua l i f y forw 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 tha thi s orhe rl i fe 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 ti o n a l i ty , me mb e r s h i p i n ap a r ti c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i ti c a l o p i n i o n . 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 ). “ A n al i en b ears th e b u rd en o f d em o n strat i n g th ath e m o re-l i k el yth a n - n o t w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d o rto r tu r e d u p o n h is r e tu r n to th e c o u n tr y in q u e s tio n .” M e n d o z av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A n a l i e n’ s t e s ti m ony , i f c r e di bl e , m a y be s uf

f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof fora s y l um orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l w i thoutc orr obor a ti on. 8 C . F . R . §§ 20 8. 13 (a ), 20 8. 16 (b). “ C on vers el y, an advers e c re di bi l i ty det er m i nat i on al on e m ay b e s u ff icien t t o su p p o rt th e d en ial o f a n as ylu m ap p li ca ti o n .” F o rg u e v . U .S . A tt ’y G en ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “[T ]h e w ea k erth e a p p li ca n t’ s testim o n y . . . th e g re aterth e n ee d fo r c o rr o b o ra ti v e e v id en ce .” Y an g v . U .S . A tt ’y G en. , 41 8 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W hen the IJ enum er at es an a p p lic a n t’s in c o n s is te n c ie s a n d is s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d , w e “m a y n o t s u b s titu te ou r j ud gm entfor thatof the IJ w i th res pectt o i t s c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng s. ” D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 9 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on as i f i tw er e the B IA ’ s bec ause the B IA5

e xpr e s s l y a dopt e d the I J ’ s f i ndi ngs . A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284. T o the e xt e nt th a t th e I J ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n ale g a l d e te r m in a tio n , o u rr e v ie w is d e n o v o . M oh am m ed v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 -48 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). T he IJ ’ s fac tual d et erm i n at i o n s are rev i ew ed u n d er th e su b st an ti al -ev i d en ce t est , an d w e “ m u st a f f i r m the [ I J ’ 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 nti a l , a nd prob ati ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ’ ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 1 2 8 4 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e c on cl ud e thatthe IJ ’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty det er m i nat i on w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n thi s c as e. B oh orqu ez fi rs tt es ti fi ed thatthe F A R C tri ed t o abduc thi m on J une 6, 2000 a nd tha the w a s s hota tw hi l e dr i vi ng on the hi ghw a y e i ghtt o t e n m onths l a t e r . H e l a t e rt e s ti f i e d tha tthe a tt e m pt e d ki dna pi ng occurre d o n Jun e 6, 20 01 and thatthi s w as the on l y a tt ac k agai nsthi m . B oh orqu ez a l s o s t a t e d tha tF A R C be ga n thr e a t e ni ng hi m i n 1997, butl a t e ra dm i tt e d tha tthe thr e a t s di d notbe gi n unti l 2000. A ddi ti ona l l y , he s t a t e d i n hi s a ppl i c a ti on tha the r e c e i ve d al e tt e rde c l a r i ng hi m am i l i t a r y t a r ge tbe for e hi s abduc ti on a tt e m pt , buthe di d n otdi sc uss thatl ett eri n h i s t es ti m on y. H ow ever , he di d t es ti fy thathe re ce i ved ale tte rtw o d a y s a f

te rth e a tte m p t. W hi l e ner vo usness coul d exp l ai n con fusi on as t o the exactdat e, as B ohor que z a nd S a nc he z a r gue , ore ve n am i nore rr ori n c om m uni c a ti ng the y e a rof the event , B oh orqu ez dem on stra t ed m ore than m er e ner vo usness as he confused6

both the num be rof

pe r s ona l e nc ount e r s w i th F A R C a nd w ha toc c urr e d dur i ng the encoun t er s. T here i s am at er i al di ff er ence bet w ee n b ei ng consi st ent l y threa t ened fr om 19 97 and b ei ng threa t ened si nce 200 0. T hese i ncon si st enci es cutt o the heart o f h is c la im a s th e y c o n c e r n th e f r e q u e n c y , s e v e r ity , a n d n a tu r e o f th e th r e a ts B ohor que z r e c e i ve d. A c c or di ngl y , the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tB ohor que z w a s not c r e di bl e w a s s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e , a nd B ohor que z pr e s e nt e d no evi dence thatcom pel s are vers al of thi s det er m i nat i on . H ow ever , as the IJ base d h is u ltim a te c o n c lu s io n o n B o h o r q u e z ’s la c ko f e v id e n c e , th e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g w a s n o t d e te r m in a tiv e . W e a l so fi nd thatsubst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s dec i si on that B ohor que z di d nots uf

fe rpa s tpe r s e c uti on on a c c ountof apr ot e c t e d gr ound. T he I J fo u n d th a t B o h o r q u e z ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le , a n d , a s e x p la in e d ab o v e , th is fi nd i ng w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. F urther, the do cum ent ar y e vi dence tha tthe pe ti ti one r s pr ovi de d i s notc om pe l l i ng. P e ti ti one r s pr ovi de d num e r ous l ett er s f rom hi s fam i l y thatw er e vague as t o w hatspec i fi c e vent s c on sti tut ed B o h o r q u e z ’s p e r s e c u tio n . P e titio n e r s a ls o p r o v id e d ac o p y o f ale tte rp u rp o r te d ly f r o m F A R C d e c la r in g h im am ilita r y ta r g e t b u t, e v e n a s s u m in g th e le tte ris g e n u in e , it d o e s n o t c le a r ly s ta te th a t th e F A R C s o u g h t to p u n is h B o h o r q u e z fo rh is pol i ti c a l opi ni on. A s the pe ti ti one r s pr ovi de d no c om pe l l i ng t e s ti m ony or d o c u m e n ta tio n o f

B o h o r q u e z ’s p e r s e c u tio n , p e titio n e r s ’ p a s t p e r s e c u tio n c la im fa ils .7

W i th r e ga r d t o aw e l l - founde d fe a rof f utur e pe r s e c uti on, pe ti ti one r s ha ve po i nt ed t o n o cre di bl e e vi dence thatcom pel s afi nd i ng thathe w ou l d b e per se cut ed b y th e F A R C if

th e y w e r e r e tu r n e d to C o lo m b ia . F u r th e r , B o h o r q u e z ’s u n c le re m ai ns i n C ol om bi a w i tho utsust ai ni ng any har m fr om F A R C m em bers . S uch e vi de nc e s how s tha tB ohor que z ’ s fe a ri s notobj e c ti ve l y r e a s onabl e a nd thus u n d e r m in e s a n y fe a ro f

f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . F i na l l y , pe ti ti one r s ’ w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l c l a i m s fa i l , a s the y di d not es t abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty for as yl um , w hi ch carr i es a l ow erbu rden of proo f. A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d a t1292- 93 ( noti ng tha tbe c a us e the e vi de nti a r y bur de n forw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l is g r e a te rth a n th a t im p o s e d fo ra s y lu m , if a n a lie n h a s n o t m e t th e w e llfounde d fe a rs t a nda r d fora s y l um , he ge ne r a l l y c a nnotm e e tthe s t a nda r d for w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l) . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.