### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 10, 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- 12746 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 340- 169 A L E J A N D R O P A T I N 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

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 10, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A l e j a ndr o P a t i no, a n at i v e a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w ofWe re view o nly thedenial of

I NAre lie f in th efo rm

of a sylum . In h is o rde r, theIJ als o 1 denied a sylum and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or De gradingTreatment or Punishmen t (“ C AT ”). To the extent that Patino has not already

abandone d his arguments on the CAT claims -- heprimarily challeng es the denial of I

NA re lief in his brief - - welack jurisdiction to review th e I J ’s denial of CAT relief beca use Patino did not ex haust those claims by raisingthem before the B IA. See I NA § 242(d)( 1), 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ) (“ [ a] court may review a f

inal order of removal only

if . . . the alien ha s exhausted all administrative reme dies available to the alien a s o f ri ght . ”). This ex haustion r e qu i r e m e nti s j uri s di c t i o n a l , an d p r e c lu d e s r e v i e wo f

a c l ai mth ath a s n o tb e e np r e s e nt e d t o th eIJ or the B IA. See, e.g ., Fernande z-Ber nal v. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001). Moreover, base d on our conc lusion that P atino did not establish a case for a sylum, we nee d not, and do not, consider whether he satisfied the higher standard f or withholding of

removal under the I

NA. See Al Na jjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1292- 93 (11th Cir. 2001). T o th ee x t e ntP at i n o ’ s b ri e f a l s o i n c lu d e s argum e nt s c h a l l e n g i n gth eB IA ’ s o rd e r d e ny- 2 ing his motion for re consideration, in a Dec ember 3, 2004 Order, wedismiss ed his appe al as to that 2 the f i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p eal s ( “ B I A ” ) , w hi c h a f f i r m e d the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’s (“IJ ’ s” ) deni al of as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the 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 ” ) . I n de ny i ng hi s a syl u m re que s t , the 1 I J f ound tha tP a t i no di d notde m ons tr a t e p ast p erse c ut i on ora w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof future pers ec ut i on by the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F o rc es of C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ”) ba s e d on a n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on. O n appe a l , P a t i no arg u es h e s a t i s f i e d the s t a n d a r d f

o ra s y l u m b a s e d o n : ( 1 ) h i s me mb e r s h i p i n El Co r a j e , a c o n s e r va t i ve pol i t i c a l pa r ty ; or( 2) hi s i nvol ve m e nt , a tthe I ns t i tut e f orthe D ev el o p m e ntof A n tio g q u ia ( “I D E A ” ) , i n a n in te r n a l a u d it in v e s tig a tio n w h ic h r e v e a le d I D E A , a go vernm ent al agency , had p rovi ded fun di ng t o t he F A R C throu gh a m on ey l a u n d e r i n g s c h e me . U p o n th o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , a s w e l l a s c a r e f ul c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e f i n d n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o ra n d a f f i r m. 2order

for lac k of prose cution. Acc ording ly , we will not addre ss those arguments in this opi nion. Th eEl e venth

Circ uit ha s adopte d a s p re c e dent all d e c isi on s o f t hefo rm e r F if

th C irc uit 3 rend e re d p ri or

to O c tob e r 1 , 1 98 1. Se eB onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 07 (1 1th Cir. 1981). 3 W he n the B I A i s s ues an aff i r m a nc e w i thoutopi ni on, the I J ’ s de c i s i on b e c o me s th e f

i n a l o r d e rs u b

j e c tt o r e v i e w . Se e M e n d o z a v . A tt ’ y G e n . , 3 2 7 F. 3d 1283, 1284 n. 1 ( 11 t h C i r . 2003) . A s the f a c t - f i nde r , i ti s the I J ’ s duty t o de t e r m i ne cr edi bi l i ty, and w e w i l l no tsubst i tut e our j ud gm en t for thatof the IJ . S ee V as qu ez M ondr a gon v. IN S , 560 F . 2d 1225, 1226 ( 5th C i r . 1977) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he 3 I J ’s f a c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n th a t a n a lie n is n o t e n title d to a s y lu m m u s t b e u p h e ld if it i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Se e M a z a r i e g o s v . A tt ’ y G e n . , 241 F . 3d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . U n d e r th is h ig h ly d e f e r e n tia l s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , a d e n ia l o f a s y lu m m a y b e r e v e r s e d o n ly if th e e v id e n c e w o u l d c o m p e l a r e a s o n a b le fact -fi n d er t o fi n d th atth e req u i si t e fear o f p ersecu t i o n ex i st s. S e e IN S v . E l i asZ ac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 1 n . 1, 11 2 S . C t . 81 2, 81 5 n .1 , 1 1 7 L . E d. 2d 38 (199 2); s e e a l s o 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 oncl u si ve unl e s s a ny r e a s ona bl e a dj udi c a t orw oul d be c om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude t o the cont ra ry ”) . B e c a us e P a t i no’ s r e m o v a l pr oc e e di ngs c om m e nc e d a f t e rA pr i l 1, 1997, the ef fe ct i ve dat e of the Il l egal Im m i grat i on R ef orm and Im m i grantR es p on si bi l i ty A ct o f 1 9 9 6 ( “I I R I R A ” ) , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 3 0 0 9 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , th is c a s e is4

go verned by the perm anentprov i si on s o f t he Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct ( “ I N A ” ) , a s a m e nde d by I I R I R A . G onz a l ez- O r ope z a v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 321 F . 3d 1331, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; B a l ogun v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 304 F . 3d 1303, 1309 (11t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). A n al i en w ho arri ves i n o r i s pre se nti n the U ni t ed S t at es m ay appl y f or as yl um . S ee IN A § 2 08 (a )( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (1). T he A tt orney G ener al ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt a s y l um i f the a l i e n me e t s the I N A ’ s de f i ni t i on of a

“ r e f uge e . ” S e e I N A § 208( b) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158 (b )(1) . A “ r e f uge e ” i s a ny pe r s on w h o is u n w il li n g to re tu rn to h is h o m e c o u n try o r to av ail h im se lf o f th at co u n tr y ’s pr ot ect i on “ be c a us e of pe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l - f ounde d f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

r a c e , r e l i gi on, n at i o na l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a r s s oc i a l gr oup, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). T he as yl um appl i ca nt ca rr i es the bu rden of prov i ng st atut o ry “ref ug ee ” st atu s. S ee A l N ajj ar v . A sh cro ft , 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ); 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( a ) . T he appl i can t sa t i s f i e s thi s bur de n by s how i ng, w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e : ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof a s t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f

a c t or , or (2) a“ w el l -f

ou nd ed fe ar ” thathi s or herst atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w i l l cause f uture pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. “ [P ] ersecut i on i s a n ext re m e c o n ce p t, requ i ri ng m ore than a few i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on. ” S e pul ve da v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 378 F . 3d 1260, 12645

(1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci t at i o n an d i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). P u t a n o th er w ay, “‘[ m ]e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o ta m o u n t to p e r s e c u tio n .’” I d . ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( q u o tin g G o n z a le z v . R e n o , 2 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T he pe t i t i one r’ s w el l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe on a c c ountof , or because of, on e of the st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct ors, such as h is p o li ti cal op i ni on . S ee E l i as-Z acari as, 5 0 2 U . S . a t 4 8 3 , 1 1 2 S . C t . at8 1 6 . T h e p et i t i o n er m u stest ab l i sh thi s c a us a l c onne c t i on by “ pr e s e nt i ng s pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i n g a good re as on t o f

e a r tha t he or s he w i l l be s i ng l e d ou t f or pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ou nt of such an op i ni on . ” S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 31 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). W e have approved of a “ c ou ntr y - w i de r e qu i r e me nt ” i n w hi c h ar e f ug e e mus tf

i r s tpu r s ue a n “ i nt er nal re se tt l em ental t ernat i ve” i n h i s ow n cou ntry , or es t abl i sh thatthi s i s notpo ssibl e, b e f o r e s e e k in g a s y lu m h e r e . M a z a r ie g o s , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 - 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “‘[ A ]n im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n , w h e t h e r c o r r e c tly o rin c o r r e c tly at tr i bu t e d, ’ ma y c on s t i tut e a gr ou nd f ora ‘ w e l l - f

ou nd e d f

e a r ’ of po l i t i ca l pe r s e c ut i on w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the I N A . ” A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1289 ( quot i ng M or a l e s v. I N S , 208 F . 3d 3 2 3 , 331 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ) . T o pr e va i l on a the or y of i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on the a s y l um appl i c a ntm us ts how tha tthe “ [p ] e r s e c ut or fa l se l y a ttri bu t e[ d] an op i ni on t o [hi m ] , and t hen p er se cut e[ d] [hi m ] because of that m i s t a ke n be l i e f

a bout[ hi s ] v i ew s. ” I d. ( a l t e r a t i ons i n or i gi na l ) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on6

m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . E v en i f the a s y l um appl i c a nte s t a bl i s he s tha tthe p e r s e c u to rim p u te d a p o litic a l o p in io n t o h i m , h e w o u ld s till h a v e to d e m o n s tr a te tha the ha s a w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on be c a us e of tha ti m put e d opi ni on. Id. H e r e , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the B IA ’ s de c i s i on tha tP a t i no w a s not en ti tl ed t o asy l um , base d o n ei ther pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p er se cu ti on , on ac coun tof a pol i t i ca l op i ni on . T he on l y e vi dence of P at i no ’s a l l e g e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n a ttr i b u t a b l e , w i th a n y d e g r e e o f s p e c i f i c i ty , t o th e FA RC c o n s i s t e d o f

s o me th r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s a n d a n i n c i d e n td u r i n g w h i c h s o me p e o p le w e a r in g F A R C a r m b a n d s in te r c e p te d P a tin o ’s c a r o n th e r o a d , p h y s i c a lly a s s a u lte d h im , a n d o r d e r e d h im to r e tr a c t c e r ta in p a r ts o f h is I D E A a u d it r e p o r t. T he I J f ound tha t , w hi l e P a t i no m a y ha ve he l d a pol i t i c a l opi ni on a nd “ ev en gone so fa r as b ei ng a m em ber of a pol i t i ca l organi za t i on [E l C oraj e] , ” there w as no e vi de nc e “ that t h e F A R C ha d a ny i nt e r e s tw ha t s oe ve ri n hi s m e m be r s hi p . . . nor i s there ev en a ny i ndi c a t i on tha tthe F A R C ha d a ny i nt e r e s ti n hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on atal l . ” A s f o rP a tin o ’s p a r tic ip a tio n in th e a u d it o f I D E A , a n d th e F A R C ’s th r e a ts a n d th e i n c i d e n to f

p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e a g a i n s tPa t i n o , th e I J d e t e r mi n e d th a tt he F A R C h a d a c te d n o t b a s e d o n P a tin o ’s p o litic a l o p in io n , b u t s im p ly to s to p h im f r om c onduc t i ng the a udi ta nd r e ve a l i ng the m one y l a unde r i n g sch em e thr ough7

w h ich th e F A R C w a s r e c eiv in g so m e o f its fu n d s. T h e I J f o u n d th e F A R C ’s a lle g e d c o n d u c t w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , a n d n o th in g in the re cord com pel s us t o revers e thatfi nd in g . S ee A d efem i , 38 6 F . 3d at10 27 . In fa ct , these al l eged act s app ea r t o b e m er ely “ a f ew i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on, ” w hi ch i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. S e e S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T h r e a ts o rh a r a s s m e n t, a l one , do notc ons t i tut e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount of a s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound. S e e V a tul e v v. A s hc r of t , 3 5 4 F . 3d 1207, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ; M i kha i l e vi t c h v. I N S , 1 4 6 F .3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 0 ( 6 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A s f ora w e l l - f

ounde d f

e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, b ecau se P a t i no di d not pr e s e nt“ s p e c i f

i c , d e t a i l e d f

a c t s s h o w i n g a g o o d r e a s o n t o f e a r th a t h e . . . w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut io n , ” i d. at12 31 (quo t at i on om i tt ed), w e a re no tcom pel l ed t o co n cl u d e th at P at i n o h as est ab l i sh ed a case fo r asyl u m o n th atb asi s. N o t ab l y, a f t e rP a t i no’ s a tt e m pt s t o s a ni t i z e hi s a udi tr e por tw e r e uns uc c e s s f ul , he l e f thi s j ob a tI D E A . A l though he o b t ai n ed a vi s a f ortr a ve l t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thi n the sa m e m on th as l eav in g ID E A , he di d n otl ea ve C ol om bi a f or approx i m at el y three m o n th s , d u ri n g w h i ch h e l i v ed i n ci d en t -free, w i th n o su b seq u en ti n t eract i o n w ith th e F A R C . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d c o n ta in s n o e v id e n c e th a t P a tin o a b a n d o n e d h is po l i t i ca l bel i ef

s or a ff i l i at i on w i th E l C oraj e duri ng thatsa m e t i m e.8

Q ui t e s i m pl y, no thi ng i n the re cord i nd i ca t es that th e F A R C pers ec ut ed P at i no on acco u n t o f h i s pol i t i ca l op i ni on s, or hi s a ff i l i at i on w i th E l C oraj e, or that the F A R C , i m put i ng a pol i t i c a l opi ni on t o P a t i no, pe r c e i ve d P a t i no’ s i nvol ve m e nt i n t he ID E A audi tas a pol i t i ca l st at em en t a g ain stthe F A R C . W e a re sa t i sf i ed that 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 o n c lu s io n th a t P a tin o f a i l e d t o m e e t h is s i gni f i c a ntbur de n of

pr ovi ng e i the rpa s tp er s e c ut i on ora w e l l - f ounde d f

e a rof f u tu re p ersecu t i on on the ba s i s of hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on. A nd, w e c a nnots a y the re cord evi dence w ou l d com pel a r ea sonabl e f ac t -f in d ert o rea ch a c on tra ry c onc l us i on o n t hi s pe t i t i on f ora s y l um . S e e E l i a s - Z a c ha r i a s , 502 U . S . a t481 n. 1, 112 S . C t . A t815 n. 1; 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.