FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 88 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -6 42 -9 23 DOMINGO ALFREDY PRATO-HIGUERA, INES ASTRID RAMI REZ-MOLINA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs , vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES, andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Dom in go Alfre dy Prato -Hig ue ra, an d h is wife , Ine s As tri d R am ire zMo li na , na ti ve s an d c it iz en s o f Ven ezu el a, se ekrev ie w of t he Bo ardof

1 Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de ni al of P rat o- Hig ue ra’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”). 2 Prat o- Hig ue ra’s as y lu m

an d wi th ho ld in g- of

-rem ov al cla im s ar e b as edon hi s as se rti on th athe was p ers ecu te d due to th e rel ig io us an d p ol it ic al m es sa ge s t ha t h e sp readth ro ug h h is workas am us ic ia n a ndm

us ic tea ch er. Sp eci fic al ly, he all eg ed th atm em be rs of t he Bo li va ria n C irc le s (am il it an t o rg an iz at io n tha t s up po rts th e Ven ezu el ango ve rn m en t), a tt ack edhi m an d h is fam il y

on two sep arat e o ccas io ns . On ap pe al , Prat o- Hig ue ra ar gu es th atth e IJ an d B IA erre d b y wron gl y fin di ng : (1 ) th athe lac ke d c red ib il it y , and(2) th at , alt ern at iv el y , he h adno t s uf fere d pe rs ecu ti on at t he ha nd s o f th e Bo li va ria n C irc le s.

“ Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on , exc ep t t o th e ex te ntth atth e BIA h as ex pr es sl y ad op te d t he IJ’s d eci si on .” Ru iz v. Go nz al es ,
Ramirez-Molina seeks r elief a s a der ivative bene ficiar y of Prato-H igue ra’ s asylum 1 application, pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)( 3)(A) . Luis Alfredo Prato was orig inally a par ty to this appeal a s well, howeve r a pa nel of this Court gr anted the g overnme nt’s motion to di smiss Prato afte r the B IA re opened his re moval proce eding s. The I J also denied r elief unde r the United N ations Convention Aga inst Torture and 2 Other Crue l, Inhuman or De gradingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F .R. § 208.16. Howeve r, Prato-H igue ra ha s waived a ny argument reg ardinghis entitlement to CAT relief by failingto argue the merits of this i ssue on appe al. See Estate of McCall ex rel. McCall v. United States, 642 F.3d 944, 952 n.4 (11th Cir. 2011). 247 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ In so far a s t he BIA ad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g,

we rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.” Ch env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 28 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Adm in is tra ti ve factua l fi nd in gs , in cl ud in g c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , are re vi ewedun de r th e h ig hl y de fere nt ia l s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t es t. Ch en , 46 3 F .3dat 1 23 0– 31 . Und er t ha t t es t, we m us t af firm a factua l fi nd in g i f it is “ supp orte d b y

reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rd
co ns id eredas awho le .” Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. To es tabl is h a sylum

eli gi bi li ty, anap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve th athe or s he is a

“ refu ge e” u nd er t he Im

m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 );
se e al so Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. A refu ge e m us t (1 ) ha ve su ffer edpa st pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s o r he r so ci al gro up , po li ti cal op in io n, o r an y ot he r pr ot ect edgro un d, o r (2 ) po ss es s a “ well -fo un de d fe ar” t ha t h is or h er s oc ia l g ro up , po li ti cal op in io n, o r an y

ot he r pr ot ect edgro un d wi ll cau se futur e p ers ecu ti on . 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .13 (b ), Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 26 , 12 30 –3 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ To es tabl is h a sylum ba se d o n p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t pr ov e (1 ) th at[]he was pe rs ecu te d, an d (2 ) th atth e p ers ecu ti on was o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d.” Sil vav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 48 F.3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ). 3“ [P]erse cu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few i so la te d

in ci de nt s o f ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n.” Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (qu ot at io ns m ark s o m it te d) . W e h av e h el d t ha t a d et en ti on do es no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on wher e th e ap pl ic an t s uf fere d o nl y

m in orin juri es as a res ul t o f th atde te nt io n. Djon dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 14 F.3d11 68 , 11 74 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). Whe n a n a li encan no t m eetth e requi rem en ts forasylum , he i s g en eral ly pr ecl ud edfro m

qu al ifyin g u nd er t he m or e st rin ge ntst an dardforwithh ol di ng . Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2– 33 . Mor eo ve r, to be en ti tl edto withh ol di ng of
rem ov al , an a li enm

us t es tabl is h t ha t h is “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en ed
. . . be cau se of the ali en ’s race, re li gi on , nat io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup, o r po li ti cal op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Upo n ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rdan d the pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we fin d t ha t
subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t Pr at o- Hig ue ra fa il edto
es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al
. Sp eci fic al ly, acco rd in g 3 to hi s t es ti m on y , Prat o- Hig ue ra re cei ve d o nl y “ sl ig htbl ows ” in th e fi rs t at ta ck , and hi s ca r was on ly sli gh tl y

da m ag edin th e se co ndatt ack
. Eve n wh enco up le d wi th Although Prato-Higuera

challeng es the a g ency ’s cr edibility deter mination, we nee d not 3 addre ss that finding be cause we f ind that, even a ccepted as true , his testimony fails to establish his eligibility

for a sylum. See Tangv. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F .3d 1270, 1275 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (Court may

aff irm on any

g round supported by

rec ord, at lea st where as her e “g overnme nt expressly asked” for a ffirma

nce on suc h g rounds).

4th e al le ge d d eath t hr eat s, t he se in ci de nt s o f m il d v io le nc e d o n otco m pe l t he
co nc lu si on th atPrat o- Hig ue ra s uf fere d p ers ecu ti onth aten ti tl es hi m to asylu m . See Djon da , 51 4 F .3dat 1 17 4 (“ m in orbe at in g” res ul ti ng in “ sc rat ch es an d brui se s” do es no t co m

pe l co nc lu si onth atap pl ic an t s uf fere d p as t p ers ecu ti on ); s ee al so Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (“ m en aci ng tel ep ho ne cal ls an d [v erb al ] th reat s . . . do no t ri se to th e le ve l o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on ”). Fu rth erm or e, al th ou gh Prat oHig ue ra ar gu es th atth e ag en cy erre d b y fai li ng to refe ren ce t he Sta te Depa rtment’s Co un try Repo rt f

orVene zu el a, th atrep ort d oe s n otsupp ort h is cla im for asylu m , bu t i ns te adst at es th atth ere wer e n o re po rts of g ov ern m en t-s po ns or edpo li ti cal ly
m ot iv at edki ll in gs or d is ap pe aran ces in Vene zu el a in 20 08 . As a res ul t, t he ag en cy di d n oterr i n i ts fin di ng th atPrat o- Hig ue ra was in el ig ib le forasylu m an d wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2– 33 (fai lu re t o m eet st an da rd s fo r as y lu m

als o g en eral ly det erm in es fai lu re t o m eetm or e st rin ge nt st an da rd s fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al ). Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e ag en cy ’s den ia l o f Prat o- Hig ue ra’s cl ai m fo r as y lu m

an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . As a res ul t, we m us t al so affi rm

th e de ni al of R am ire z-M ol in a’s cl ai m forasylum

as ade riv at iv e b en efi ci ary of he r hu sb an d’s ap pl ic at io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED
. 5