FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 28, 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. 05- 17125 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 73- 788- 054 D E Y A N I R A S U S A - V A L E N C I A , 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

a D 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 28, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The Revolutionary Armed F orce s of Colombia. 1 2 C ol om bi an ci t i ze n and nat i on al D ey ani raS usa- V al enci a pet i t i on s f or re vi ew 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 c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rc l a i m f ora s y l um , 8 U . S . C . § 1158, w i thhol di ng of r e mo v a l u n d e rth e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d N a t i o n a l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1231( b) ( 3) , a nd he rc l a i m f orpr ot e c t i on 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 a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt (“ C A T ”), 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c). S u sa-V al en ci a arg u es th atth e IJ’ s ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence, and thatthe IJ e rr e d in d e n y in g a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f u lly b e lo w , w e d is m is s th e p e titio n in p a r t a n d d e n y th e p e titio n in p a r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D S us a - V a l e nc i a e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s on M a y 27, 2002. I n O c t obe r2002, s he appl i e d f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd C A T r e l i e f a l l e gi ng p e r s e c u tio n b y S q u a d # 5 0 o f th e F A R C d u e to h e rp o litic a l b e lie f s a n d a c tiv is m . 1 S u sa-V al en ci a al l eg ed th at , b eg i n n i n g i n M arch 2 0 0 1 , sh e w as su b j ectt o t erro ri st and m i l i t ary per se cut i on and al so threa t ened. In a s t at em entsubm i tt ed i n sup po rt of he rappl i c a t i on, S us a - V a l e nc i a s t a t e d tha ts he r e c e i ve d thr e a t s vi a a nony m ous no t es , t el epho ne ca l l s, and i n p er son. A m on g the do cum ent s s ub m i tt ed i n sup po rt of he rappl i c a t i on w a s a pol i c e r e por tba s e d on a c om pl i a nttha ts he f i l e d on3

F e brua ry 14, 2002. A c c or di ng t o the r e por t , S us a - V a l e nc i a t ol d the pol i c e tha ts he w as a hou se w i fe and h ad re ce i ved p ho ne ca l l s a tho m e by per sons w ho sa i d that th ey w o u l d k i l l h er b ecau se sh e w o rk ed fo r a l o cal p o l i t i ci an , a H o u se R epre se nt at i ve fr om the D epartm entof Q ui nd i o, and h el ped h i m m ake pol i t i ca l pr os e l y t i s m . S us a - V a l e nc i a a l s o s ubm i tt e d a c e r t i f i c a t i on f r om the m a y orof C a l a r c a , s i gne d on F e brua ry 20, 2002, w hi c h s t a t e d tha ts he w a s thr e a t e ne d a nd de c l a r e d a m i l i t a ry obj e c t i ve by S qua d #50 of the F A R C , a nd tha tthe m a y or p e r s o n a lly a d v is e d h e rto le a v e th e c o u n try . In Ja nu ary 200 3, S usa- V al enci a w as i ss ued a no t i ce t o app ear, char gi ng her w i th r e m ovabi l i ty unde rI N A § 237( a ) ( 1) ( B ) f orr e m a i ni ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f or a tim e lo n g e rth a n p e rm itte d . D u r in g r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , S u s a - V a le n c ia c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab i l i ty a n d r e q u e s t e d a s y l u m , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , a n d C AT r e lie f . A tthe heari ng on her app l i ca t i on , S usa- V al enci a t es t i fi ed thatshe w as m e m be rof

the L i be r a l I nt e gr a t i on M ove m e nta nd w a s the l e a de rf orone of s i x or s e ve n gr oups w i thi n the or ga ni z a t i on. H e rgr oup c onduc t e d he a l th br i ga de s a nd recreati o n al g ro u p s an d co l l ect ed sch o o l su p p l i es fo r ch i l d ren . T h ey w o u l d al so he l p the pe a s a nt s w i th the i rne e ds a nd he l p the y outh s o tha tthe y w oul d notbe r e c ru ite d b y th e g u e r illa s . A t m e e tin g s , S u s a - V a le n c iaw o u ld s p e a k to th e y o u th ab o u t n o t jo in in g th e g u e r illa s .4

S us a - V a l e nc i a de s c r i be d f ouri nc i de nt s i nvol vi ng the F A R C . O n M a r c h 30, 2 0 0 1 , s h e r e c e iv e d a th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a ll a t h e rh o m e f r o m th e F A R C . O n J u ly 20, 2001, one of

he rgr oup’ s m e e t i ngs w a s di s rupt e d by 15 or20 pe opl e , w ho i d e n t i f i e d th e ms e l v e s a s f

r o m Fr o n t5 0 o f

th e FA RC. Th e s e p e o p l e c a me s c r e a m in g f

o rh e rh e a d a n d th r e a te n e d h e r , b u t s h e w a s p r o te c te d b y th e p e o p le w ho w er e pre se ntatthe m ee t i ng . O n S ept em ber 25, 20 01 , tw o m en approached S us a - V a l e nc i a a s s he w a s w a l ki ng i nt o he rapa r tm e nta nd ha nde d he ra n e nve l ope th a tr e a d F r o n t5 0 o f

th e F AR C . S u s a - Va l e n c i a n e v e ro p e n e d th e e n v e l o p e . On F ebruary14 , 20 02 , she r ec ei ved a ph on e c al l atw ork. T he ca l l erthrea t ened her w i th d eath i f sh e d i d n o tl eav e th e co u n try. S u s a - V a le n c iae x p la in e d th a t s h e d idn o t p u t th e d a te s o f th e s e in c id e n ts in he rappl i c a t i on be c a us e s he w a s t ol d tha ts he c oul d notw r i t e s uc h a l ong s t ory , a nd th a t s h e d id n o t p u t th e m in h e rs ta te m e n t b e c a u s e s h e th o u g h t it w o u ld b e to o lo n g . S he expl ai ned thatshe t ol d the po l i ce thatshe w as a hou se w i fe because s he had r e tir e d ab o u t tw o o rth r e e m o n th s b e f o r e to s e e if

s h e w o u ld b e s a f

e ra t h o m e . A s k e d h o w s h e r e c e iv e d a c a ll a t w o rk w h e n s h e h a d a lr e a d y r e tir e d , S u s a - V a le n c ia expl ai ned that“ the dat es ar en’ texac t l y the on es thatI r ec al l the m ost , because a t thatt i m e, I w as qu i t e nervo us. ” S us a - V a l e nc i a e xpl a i ne d tha tthe l e tt e rf r om the m a y orw a s pr e pa r e d be c a us e s he w e ntt o s e e hi m i n s e a r c h of he l p. T he m a y or s i gne d the c e r t i f

i c a t i on a s pr oof

tha ts he s oughthe l p f

r om hi m a nd be c a us e s heSusa-Valencia doe s not raise a ny challeng e in her

brief to the denial of CAT re lief, 2 thereby abandoningthe issue. Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). Ac cording ly , this iss ue is not discussed further. 5 w ant ed a c ert i fi ca t e. A sked w hy she nee ded thi s e vi dence, S usa- V al enci a t es t i fi ed thatshe w ant ed t o l etthe m ay or kn ow w hatw as happ eni ng t o h erand d eni ed that s h e w a s a lr e a d y p la n n in g to c o m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d ap p ly f o ra s y lu m . W he n s he a rr i ve d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , S us a - V a l e nc i a us e d a m a r i ne vi s a , the p u rp o s e o f

w h ic h w a s to w o rk o n a f lo a tin g m e r c h a n t s h ip , th a t s h e o b ta in e d in B o g o t a w i th th e h el p o f a co m p an y. H o w ev er, u p o n arri v i n g i n th e U n i t ed S t at es, S usa- V al enci a t ol d the com pany thatshe w as no tgo i ng t o w ork. S he expl ai ned thatthi s w as because s he w as fr i gh t ened of the ocean. H ow ever , she a l so st at ed thatshe knew she w as no tgo i ng t o w ork o n the shi p b ec ause the vi saw as no tl egal f o rw o rk o n th a t s h ip , e x p la in in g th a t s h e m e a n t th a t s h e h a d o b ta in e d th e v is a in o r d e rto g e t o u t o f

C o lo m b iab e c a u s e s h e h a d b e e n th r e a te n e d . S u s a - V a le n c ia t e s t i f i e d tha ts he be l i e ve d s he w oul d be ki l l e d i f s he r e turne d t o C ol om bi a . S he a l s o s t a t e d tha t , a s s oon a s s he r e turne d, s he w oul d c ont i nue w orki ng w i th the g r o u p b e c a u s e s h e lik e d p a r tic ip a tin g in p o litic s . T he IJdeni ed as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef . S usa- 2 V a l e nc i a appe a l e d t o the B I A , w hi c h a f f i rm e d the I J w i thoutopi ni on.6 I I . DI S CUS S I ON B e c a us e the B I A s um m a r i l y a f f i rm e d the I J w i thoutopi ni on, w e r e vi e w the IJ ’ s opi ni on . S ee M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at12 84 n. 1. W e r evi ew fa ctual det erm i nat i on s, i ncl ud i ng cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s, usi ng the subst ant i al evi dence te s t. F o r g u e v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e w ill a f f i rm i f the de c i s i on “ i 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 or d c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . W e r e vi e w the r e c or d e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s in f

a v o ro f th a t d e c is io n . I d . T o c o n c lu d e th a t th e I Js h o u ld b e r e v e r s e d , w e “m u s t f in d th a t th e r e c o r d n o t o n ly s uppor t s tha tc onc l us i on, butc om pe l s i t . ” F a hi m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 278 F . 3d 1216, 1218 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T o the e xt e nt th e I J ’s d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n a le g a l d e te rm in a tio n , r 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 ). In hi s ora l deci si on the IJi ni t i al l y r ef erre d t o S usa- V al enci a’ s t es t i m on y a s

“ i l l og i ca l and . . . i ncon si st enti n si gn i fi ca ntpart s, ” a nd , as a r es ul t , foun d h er cr edi bi l i ty “ si gn i fi ca nt l y di m i ni shed. ” H ow ever , the IJfurther f ou nd that , “ un der the c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e , the l a c k of

c r e di bi l i ty of

thi s r e s ponde nt , a nd the ab s e n c e o f

r e liab le s u p p o r tin g d o c u m e n ts to s u p p o r t h e rc a s e , . . . a r e a s o n ab le pe r s on i n [ S us a - V a l e nc i a ’ s ] s i tua t i on w oul d notf e a rr e turni ng t o C ol om bi a f ora ny7

o f th e f iv e s ta tu to ry g r o u n d s .” ( E m p h a s is a d d e d ) . B a s e d o n th is la tte rs ta te m e n t, w e a r e n o t “le f

t in th e d a rk ” a s to w h e th e ro rn o t th e I J f o u n d S u s a - V a le n c ia c r e di bl e . Y a ng v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on an d q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). W e th erefo re co n si d er w h eth er th e IJ’ s ad v erse c r e d ib ility f

in d in g w a s s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I n m a k in g th is d eter m in atio n , th e I J p o in ted to in co n sisten cies b o th w ith in S u sa -V alen cia’s t est i m o n y an d b etw een h er t est i m o n y an d su p p o rt i n g d o cu m en t at i o n . T h e IJ al so r e je c te d S u s a - V a le n c ia ’s e x p la n a tio n s f o rs o m e o f

h e ra c tio n s a s illo g ic a l. W e r e a d ily c o n c lu d e th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility f in d in g . B ecau se th e d en i al o f asyl u m can n o tb e b ased so l el y o n an ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng i f the appl i ca ntoffe re d “ other e vi dence of pers ec ut i on , ” F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at12 87 , w e nextconsi der w hether the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatS usa- V al enci a w as n o t e lig ib le f

o ra s y lu m w a s s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . W e f i nd tha tS us a - V a l e nc i a ha s nots a t i s f i e d he rbur de n of

s how i ng tha tthe I J ’ s f i ndi ng w a s nots uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . H e rr e l i a nc e on the t el epho ni c dea th threa tt o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on fa i l s bec ause thi s threa tdo es n o t “ rise to th e lev el o f p as t p er se cu ti o n th at w o u ldco m p el re v er sa l o f th e I J’s d e c is io n .” S e p u lv e d a v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A s to a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n , th e I J r e c o g n iz e d th a t S u s a - V a le n c ia w o u ld u n d e r s ta n d ab ly b e c o n c e rn e d ab o u t r e tu rn in g if th e a tte m p t b y th e F A R C toSus a -V alenc ia alsoc halleng e s th eIJ’s f indingre g ardingher a

bil ity to re a so na

bly 3 reloc ate a s erroneous on the ground that the re location re quirement is unconstitutional. Although brought as a c onstitut ional challeng e, Susa-Valencia e ssentially seeks to either

not be require d to show that she is unable to re locate, or to have the IJ ’s re location findingreevaluated. Susa-Valencia never raised this claim bef ore theBIA, which c ould have a fforded her the re lief she seeks on appeal. Due to her failureto exhaust admini strative remedies, welack jurisdiction over this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ; Sundar v. I .N.S., 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003). Acc ording ly , Susa-Valencia’ s petition is due to be dismi ssed, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. We have recently

held that the 1999 and 2000 U .S. Depar tment of State’s country 4 repor ts on Colombia compel the c onclusion that relocation in C olombia was not a viableoption. Arboleda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 434 F .3d 1220, 1224-25 (11th Cir. 2006) (c iting Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1232 n.7). Even if w e were to find that the 2003 c ountry repor t does not provide substantial evidenceto support the IJ ’s re location finding , beca use Susa-Valencia c ould not demonstrate pa st persecution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution, this finding w ould not 8 ha rm he ra tthe m e e t i ng w a s true . H ow e ve r , he r e j e c t e d thi s t e s t i m ony a s not c r e di bl e . A l though S us a - V a l e nc i a c l a i m e d tha ts he f e a r e d de a th i f

s he r e turne d, he rw i l l i ngne s s t o c ont i nue the a c t i vi t i e s tha tc a us e d he rt o c om e t o the a tt e nt i on of the F A R C be c a us e s he l i ke d pol i t i c s s uppor t s the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha ts he w oul d not f e a rr e tu rn in g to C o lo m b iao n a c c o u n t o f a p r o te c te d b a s is . B e c a u s e S u s a - V a le n c ia fa i l ed t o p re se ntcr edi bl e t es t i m on y or r el i abl e docum ent ary e vi dence, the re cord doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha ts he ha d a n obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e f e a rof pers ec ut i on . F urtherm ore, the evi dence of the F A R C ’ s a ct i vi t i es i n C ol om bi a that S usa- V al enci a c i t es t o sho w thatshe c ou l d n otre as on abl y r el ocat e does notappear i n the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d. B e c a us e ourr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d by the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve 3 r e c o r d , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) , a n d S u s a - V a le n c iaf a ile d to p o in t to e v id e n c e in the adm i ni stra t i ve re cord, she c anno tm ee ther burden t o sho w thatthe re cord com pel s r ever sa l of the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatshe c ou l d rea sonabl y r el ocat e. 4chang e the outcomeof this case . See Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1232 n.7.

We rejec t the g overnment’s contention that Susa-Valencia did not exhaust her 5 administrative remedies as to this claim by failingto sufficiently

raise it bef

ore theBIA. 9 B ecau se S u sa-V al en ci a can n o test ab l i sh el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m o n th e m eri t s, she c anno tm ee tthe m ore s tri ng entst andard requi re d for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unde rthe I N A . F or gue , 401 F . 3d a t1288 n. 4. 5 I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on i n pa r tf orl a c k of j ur i s di c t i on a nd othe rw i s e de ny the pe t i t i on. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.