FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 6, 2007 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. 06- 14643 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 102- 095 T I T O E I L I A S R O J A S A Z C A R A T E , 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l6, 2007) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T i t o E i l i as R oj as A zc ar at e ( “ A zc ar at e” ) pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the fi nal2

order of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) , w hi ch adop t ed and affi rm ed th e r e mo v a l o r d e ro f

th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) d e n y i n g h i m a s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd re l i ef un der the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) . A ft er r e vi e w , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D A z c a r a t e , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , a rr i ve d i n M i a m i , F l or i daon M ar ch 29 , 20 01 , w i tho uta vi saor other type of e ntryperm i t . W hen A zc ar at e w as det ai ned and i nt ervi ew ed by i m m i grat i on offi ci al s a tthe M i am i ai rport , he st at ed h i s i n t en t i o n t o ap p l y fo r p o l i t i cal asyl u m i n th e U n i t ed S t at es. A zc ar at e w as then served w i th a N ot i ce t o A pp ea r, al l egi ng , i nt eral i a, that he w as an arri vi ng al i en w i tho uta val i d u nexp i re d v i saor other val i d entry doc um e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . A tthe A pr i l 4, 2002, hear i ng before the IJ , A zc ar at e c on ce ded rem ov abi l i ty on the basi s of bei ng an a rr iv in g a lie n w ith o u t av a lid u n e x p ir e d v is ao ro th e rv a lid e n try d o c u m e n t. A z c a r a t e a l s o f

i l e d hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on. A c c or di ng t o hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, A z c a r a t e f e a r s f orhi s l i f e be c a us e the U n ite d C iv il D e f

e n s e P a tr o ls o f

C o lo m b ia( “A U C ” ) b e lie v e s h im to b e ag u e rr illa s y m pa thi z e r . A z c a r a t e ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on s t a t e s tha t : ( 1) he be ga n r e c e i vi ng th r e a te n in g te le p h o n e c a lls f r o m th e A U C in e a r ly M a r c h 2 0 0 1 ; ( 2 ) h e r e c e iv e d s ix3

t o e i ghts uc h c a l l s ; ( 3) he r e c e i ve d athr e a t e ni ng “ c ondol e nc e ” not e on M a r c h 22, 2001; ( 4) he f

l e d the c ountry i n r e s pons e t o the c ondol e nc e not e a nd the phone c a lls ; a n d ( 5 ) th e th r e a ts w e r e r e la te d to th e A U C ’s m u r d e ro f h is c o u s in , w ith w h o m h e r a n ab u s in e s s in C a rm e lo , C o lo m b ia . I n A z c a r a te ’s v ie w , th e A U C w ill to r tu r e a n d k ill h im if

h e r e tu rn s to C o lo m b ia . A z c a r a t e a tt a c he d t o hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on a n A U C “ de a th l i s t ” c ont a i ni ng hi s nam e; an A U C fl ye r w arni ng thati nd i vi du al s c ol l aborat i ng w i th the gu erri l l as w o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d m ilita ry ta r g e ts ; ac o m p la in t h e f ile d w ith th e O f

f ic e o f P u b lic P r os e c ut oron M a r c h 27, 2001, r e ga r di ng the de a th thr e a t s ; atr a ns l a t e d c opy of the c ondol e nc e not e ; a nd as w orn s t a t e m e ntf r om hi s de c e a s e d c ous i n’ s w i f e s t a t i ng th a t A U C p a r a m ilita r ie s k ille d h e rh u s b a n d a n d th a t A z c a r a te h a d to f le e C o lo m b ia in r e s p o n s e to th e d e a th th r e a ts . T he m e r i t s he a r i ng on A z c a r a t e ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s he l d on M a r c h 31, 2005. A z c a r a t e e s s e nt i a l l y t e s t i f i e d c ons i s t e nt l y w i th hi s w r i tt e n appl i c a t i on a nd expl ai ned, throu gh coun se l , thathe w as se eki ng as yl um on the basi s of i m pu t ed pol i t i c a l opi ni on ( s pe c i f i c a l l y , the A U C ’ s be l i e f tha tA z c a r a t e w a s he l pi ng g u e rr illa s ) . A z c a r a te f

u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t o n N o v e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , th e A U C k ille d h is c ous i n be c a us e the A U C be l i e ve d tha tA z c a r a t e a nd hi s c ous i n w e r e s uppl y i ng gue rr i l l a s thr ough the i rs t or e . A z c a r a t e w a s outof t ow n i n C a l i , C ol om bi aon4

N ov em ber 22, bu yi ng supp l i es for the st ore. A ft erhi s c ou si n’ s dea th, the st ore c lo s e d , a n d A z c a r a te n e v e rr e tu rn e d to C a rm e lo . A z c a r a te a d m itte d th a t h e a n d h is c o u s in w e r e n e v e ra c tu a lly in v o lv e d w ith gu erri l l as , despi t e the fa ctthatthe A U C tho ug htthey w er e s up pl yi ng gu erri l l as th ro u g h th e st o re. A zcarate recei v ed b etw een si x t o n i n e th reat en i n g p h o n e cal l s; h is w if e r e c e iv e d f

o u ro rf iv e s u c h c a lls . T h e th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a lls w e r e m a d e to A z c a r a te ’s r e s id e n c e in C a li. A z c a r a te n o tif ie d th e a u th o r itie s o f

th e d e a th th r e a ts fi ve days af

t erre ce i vi ng the cond ol ence no t e on M ar ch 22 , 20 01 . T he autho ri t i es r e c o m m e n d e d h e le a v e th e c o u n try . A z c a r a te d id n o t r e lo c a te w ith in C o lo m b ia b e c a u s e th e A U C w a s w e ll- o r g a n iz e d a n d w o u ld f in d h im . H ow e ve r , A z c a r a t e a dm i tt e d tha t : ( 1) hi s w i f e a nd tw o da ught e r s s t i l l r e s i de in C a li a n d h a v e h a d n o p r o b le m s w ith th e A U C ; ( 2 ) h e w a s n e v e rp h y s ic a lly a c c o s te d o ra tta c k e d d u r in g th e th r e e m o n th s h e s p e n t in C o lo m b iaa f te rh is cousi n’ s dea th; and (3) he w as no ti nv ol ved i n p ol i t i cs i n any w ayi n C ol om bi a, othe rtha n vot i ng. T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s c ons i s t e ntw i th A z c a r a t e ’ s a s y l um ap p lic a tio n , w h ic h s ta te s th a t n e ith e rA z c a r a te n o ra n y m e m b e ro f h is f a m ily b el o n g ed t o o r h ad b een asso ci at ed w i th an y o rg an i zat i o n su ch as a p o l i t i cal p arty, m i l i t a ry orpa r a m i l i t a ry gr oup, s tude ntgr oup, orl aboruni on. T he I J de ni e d A z c a r a t e ’ s r e que s tf 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

, c onc l udi ng tha tthe e vi de nc e di d nots uppor tA z c a r a t e ’ s c l a i m tha theWhen the BIA issues a de cision, we review only that decision, “ex cept to the e x tent that 1 it expressly

adopts the IJ ’s opinion.” Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar

as the [BIA] adopts the IJ ’s re asoning , we will review the IJ ’s dec ision as well.” I d. Here , th eB IA e ssenti ally a dopte d a

nd a ff ir me d th eIJ’s de c isi on . A lth ough th eB IA also determine d th at Azca

rate ’s“ argumentson

a pp e al re g ardingc re dib ility fail[e d] toe sta

bli sh error ,”theIJ did n ot ac tually makean adv ers ec re dib ility findingin t

hisc a se , a

nd in a ny e vent, Azcarate does not raise any cre dibility

arguments in his petiti on for review be forethis Court. Acc ording ly , we review theIJ ’s dec ision. 5 ha d s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on orha d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. T he IJno t ed that : (1) A zc ar at e t es t i fi ed thathe w as never i nv ol ved w i th C ol om bi an p o litic s , o th e rth a n v o tin g ; ( 2 ) th e d e a th o f A z c a r a te ’s c o u s in d id n o t ap p e a rto ha ve be e n di r e c t e d a ta ny one i n pa r t i c ul a r ; ( 3) A z c a r a t e w a s notpr e s e ntf orthe i nci dentthatre sul t ed i n h i s c ou si n’ s dea th; (4) A zc ar at e w as no tac tual l y i nv ol ved w i th the gue rr i l l a s ; ( 5) i n a ny e ve nt , the A U C a c hi e ve d the i robj e c t i ve of p rev en t i n g A zcarate from h el p i n g th e g u erri l l as, b ecau se A zcarate’ s b u si n ess cl osed; (6) A zc ar at e’ s w i fe and chi l dren st i l l l i ved i n C al i , and h ad no texperi ence d a n y th r e a ts o rp r o b le m s ; a n d ( 7 ) a n d th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e A U C w a s s till lo o k in g f o rA z c a r a te . T h u s , th e I J o r d e r e d A z c a r a te b e r e m o v e d a n d d e p o r te d to C ol om bi a. A zc ar at e app ea l ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on t o the B IA , w hi ch adop t ed and affi rm ed the I J ’ s de c i s i on. T he B I A f ound tha tA z c a r a t e ’ s “ a r gum e nt s on appe a l r e ga r di ng cr edi bi l i ty f

ai l [e d] t o est abl i sh” thatthe IJerre d i n con cl ud i ng thatA zc ar at e had no tm ethi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u t i o n . Az c a r a t e t i m e l y p e t i t i o n e d th i s C o u r tf o rr e v i e w. 1To the extent that the IJ ’s dec ision was based on a leg al deter

mination, our review

is de novo. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F .3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004); Mohammed v. Ashcrof t, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). F actual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidencetest, and we“must aff irm the [IJ ’s] decision if it is ‘supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidence on therec ord considered as a whole.’”Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1283-84 (citation omitted). 6 I I . DI S CUS 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 appl y f or a s y l um . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f a“r e f u g e e .” S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A “ refu g ee” i s a n y p e r s o n w h o i s o u t si d e an y co u n try o f su ch p erso n ’ s n at i o n al i ty . . . a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o retu rn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a vai l h i m sel f orhe r s e l f of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c a us e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pe rs ec u ti on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . . 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntha s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng s ta tu to ry “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s . S e e A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). T o carrythi s burden, the al i en m ust , w i th speci fi c a nd cr edi bl e e vi dence, es t abl i sh ei ther ( 1) pastpers 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 ll- f o u n d e d f e a r ” th a t th e s ta tu to r ily lis te d f a c to rw ill c a u s e f

u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . I d . a t 1 2 8 7 . I n o r d e rto b e w e ll- f o u n d e d , af

e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n m u s t b e b o th

“ su b j ect i v el y g en u i n e an d o b j ect i v el y reaso n ab l e. ” Id . at1 2 8 9 . A fi n d i n g o f p ast7

pe r s e c ut i on c r e a t e s apr e s um pt i on tha tthe a l i e n ha s aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pers ec ut i on and shi ft s the bu rden t o the go vernm entt o d em on stra t e e i ther that c o n d itio n s h a v e c h a n g e d in th e a lie n ’s h o m e c o u n try o rth a t th e a lie n c o u ld a v o id s u c h p e r s e c u tio n b y r e lo c a tin g in th e h o m e c o u n try a n d r e lo c a tio n is r e a s o n ab le . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ; § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) . T hi s C our tha s he l d tha t“ pe r s e c ut i on” i s a n “ e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i 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 e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to p e r s e c u tio n .” S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on m a rks , c i t a t i on, a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) . “ N ota l l e xc e pt i ona l tr e a tm e nti s pe r s e c ut i on. ” G onz a l e z v. R e no, 212 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . B a s e d on the r e c or d a s aw hol e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe I J ’ s de ni a l of A zc ar at e’ s a sy l um appl i ca t i on i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. S ee A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d a t1283- 84. F i r s t , A z c a r a t e ’ s tr e a tm e nta tthe ha nds of the A U C di d not a m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. A c c or di ng t o A z c a r a t e , he r e c e i ve d be tw e e n s i x a nd ni ne th r e a te n in g te le p h o n e c a lls f r o m th e A U C ; h e r e c e iv e d ac o n d o le n c e n o te ; a n d h is c ous i n w a s ki l l e d. H ow e ve r , A z c a r a t e hi m s e l f s uf f e r e d no phy s i c a l ha rm or de pr i va t i on of

l i be r ty , a nd unde rourpr e c e de nt , the thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s a nd c ondol e nc e not e do nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. S e e S i l vav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229, 1237- 38 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c ondol e nc e not e f ol l ow e d by thr e a t e ni ngIn p a ssing , Azca rate ’sbrie f a ssert s th at hewa s p ers e cute d n ot o nly on a c c ount o f his 2 political opinion, but also on account of his member ship in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). H owever, Azcarate did not asser t beforethe IJthat he wa s perse cuted on acc ount of his membership in a par ticular social group, and ac cording ly that claim is not properly before this Court beca

use it has not been administratively exhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1). More over, Azcarate’s brie f does not spec ify the social group to which the AUC mistakenly

thought hebelong ed, statingonly that the AUC mistakenly thought that hehad “under taken to collaborate with the guerrillas and others.” 8 t el epho ne ca l l s di d n otqu al i fyas pers ec ut i on ); se e a l so S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at 12 31 (three threa t eni ng t el epho ne ca l l s a nd i n-pers on threa tt o p et i t i on er ’ s brother d id n o t c o m p e l af

in d in g o f p e r s e c u tio n ) . S ec on d, and i n any event , the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on that e i the rA z c a r a t e ’ s c ous i n’ s de a th orthe thr e a t s t o A z c a r a t e hi m s e l f oc c urr e d on a c c o u n to f

a n y p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n i mp u t e d t o A z c a r a t e ( o rh i s c o u s i n ) b y th e A U C. 2 S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). A zc ar at e a dm i tt ed that , as i de fr om vo t i ng , he w as noti nvol ve d i n C ol om bi a n pol i t i c s . A z c a r a t e f ur the ra dm i tt e d tha tne i the rhe nor a ny m e m be r s of

hi s f a m i l y a r e ore ve rha ve be e n i nvol ve d ora s s oc i a t e d w i th a ny p o l i t i cal p arty, m i l i t ary o r p aram i l i t ary g ro u p , stu d en tg ro u p , o r l ab o r u n i o n . T h u s, the e vi de nc e doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe A U C ’ s thr e a t s a nd a tt a c ks w e r e a i m e d a tA z c a r a t e on the ba s i s of hi s a c tua l ori m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on or ac t i vi ty. Inst ea d, i tappears j ustas pl ausi bl e f rom thi s r ec ord thatthe att ac ks w er e d esi g n ed t o sh u td o w n b u si n esses th atth e A U C th o u g h tw ere su p p l yi n g g u erri l l as, a goal thatthe A U C ac tual l y a chi eved (atl ea sti n the ca se of A zc ar at e) . F in a lly , A z c a r a te a d m itte d th a t h is w if e a n d c h ild r e n s till liv e in C a li, a t a9

di f f e r e nta ddr e s s , a nd the y ha ve r e m a i ne d the r e w i thouta ny pr obl e m s . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y s t a t e d tha tw he n the a l l e ge d pe r s e c ut or s a r e nota f f i l i a t e d w i th the go vernm ent , “ ‘ i ti s notun re as on abl e t o requi re a r ef ug ee w ho has a n i nt ernal r e s e tt l e m e nta l t e rna t i ve i n hi s ow n c ountry t o pur s ue tha topt i on be f or e s e e ki ng perm anentre se tt l em enti n the U ni t ed S t at es , or atl ea stt o est abl i sh thatsuch an o p t i o n i s u n av ai l ab l e. ’ ” S ep u l v ed a, 4 0 1 F . 3 d at1 2 3 1 (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h u s, even i f A zc ar at e had m anaged t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar of f utur e pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on hi s i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on orm e m be r s hi p i n a s o c ia l g r o u p , A z c a r a te n e v e r th e le s s f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t r e lo c a tio n w ith in C ol om bi ai s a n opt i on una va i l abl e t o hi m . S e e R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 1259 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c onc l udi ng tha tpe t i t i one r ’ s c l a i m tha the c oul d not r e l o c a t e i n t e rn a l l y t o a v o i d f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n wa s c o n tr a d i c t e d b yh i s o wn t e s t i m ony tha thi s s on a nd hi s pa r e nt s ha ve r e m a i ne d unha rm e d i n the r e gi on of C ol om bi a w here he al l egedl y w as threa t ened). F o ra ll o f th e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t A z c a r a te h a s f a ile d to c a rry h is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n h is a s y lu m c la im . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e A z c a r a te h a s f a ile d to c a rry the bur de n of

pr oof on hi s a s y l um c l a i m , hi s c l a i m s f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd C A T r e l i e f a l s o f a i l . S e e F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1288 n. 4 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ B e c a us e [ pe t i t i one r ] ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h ac l a i m of a s y l um on the m e r i t s , he ne c e s s a r i l y f a i l s t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f orw i thhol di ng ofAzcarate’s claim that the IJabused his discretion by failingto conduct an independent 3 evaluation of his CAT claim is belied by our pre cedent and does not re quire additional discussion. See Forgue, 401 F .3d at 1288 n.4. 10 re m ov al or prot ec t i on un der C A T . ”) . 3 I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthe B I A ’ s a nd I J ’ s de ni a l of as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef ar e s up po rt ed by subst ant i al e v i d e n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y Az c a r a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.