A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

HE RB E RT DOUGL AS M O SCO SO - M O RA LES, P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t or ney G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 05- 9524 ( N o. A 97- 187- 270) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. H erber tD ougl as M os cos o- M or al es pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (B IA ) deci si on affirm i ng t he Im m i grat i on Judg e’s (I J) deni al of hi s r eques tforas y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he I J concl uded t hatpet i t i onerw as notel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e he ha d notm ethi s bur den of-2-

e sta b lish in g p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d fe a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . T h is c o n c lu sio n w a s b a se d o n th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t p e tit io n e r w a s n o t cr e d ib le w i t h r egar d t o hi s fea rof l i vi ng i n C ol om bi a. T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i t h s om e addi t i onal r eas oni ng. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B IA ’s de cisi o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yd e t e r mi n a t i o n i s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we re v e rs e a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

B ackgr ound Pet i t i oneri s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a. H e w as r ai s ed i n the M or m on C hur ch and s pentm os tof hi s l i fe i n r el i gi ous act i vi tys ervi ng on var i ous c o m m itt e e s a n d tea c h in g . P e tit io n e r m a rrie d N a n c yE len a P in e ro s-S a n c h e z in 2 0 0 0 . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 , h e w a s a p p o in ted a tea c h e r a t L a M e rc e d H ig h S c h o o l in I b a g u e , wh i c h i s a b o u t1 0 0 mi l e s we s to f th e c a p i t o l . I n I b a g u e , h e b e c a me i nt er es t ed i n t he pol i t i cal campai gn of J uan Fel i pe O r t i z, w ho w as al s o a chur ch m ember . M r . O r t i z w as a mem berof the nat i onal l i ber al partyand a mem berof th e lo c a l p a rtyc a lled th e C o lo m b ian C o n se rv a tiv e s. P e tit io n e r w a s q u ite a c tiv e in th e c a m p a ig n a s th e c h ief o f d e b a te a n d th e a d v iso r c o n c e rn in g tele v isio n sp o ts fo r t h e c a n d id a te . H e a ls o d id s o m e c a m p a ig n in g in th e n o rt h e rn p a rt s o f th e c ity. D ur i ng t hi s t i m e, pet i t i onerw as al s o i nvol ved w i th an i nform al gr oup cal l ed the V eedor s , w hi ch i s t r ans l at ed as “audi t or s . ” Thi s gr oup tr i ed t o r ootoutcorrupt i on in th e lo c a l c ity g o v e rn m e n t a n d b ri n g it to th e p u b lic ’s a tte n tio n .-3-

Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thatatthe begi nni ng of the s chool y eari n 2001, a man appr oache d hi m and t ol d hi m t hathe s houl d be i ns truct i ng the s tudent s thatthey s h o u l d b e c o me a p a r to f t h e P e o p l e ’ s Ar my . Th i s wa s a r e fe r e n c e t o F ARC, w h ich is th e p rin c ip a l re v o lu tio n a ryg ro u p in C o lo m b ia a n d h a s b e e n re sp o n sib le fort hous ands of dea t hs i n t hatcountry . Pet i t i onerr efus ed t o cooper at e w i th the m an and i ns t ead publ i cl ydenounce d FA R C dur i ng cl as s and i n m eet i ngs w i th t he par ent s . H e t es t i fi ed thaton N ovember12, 2001, he w as appr oache d bytw o m en on m ot or cy cl es w ho bl ocked hi s path. T heythr ew hi m t o the gr ound and t hr eat ened hi m and made hi m pr om i s e nott o par t i ci pat e i n anym or e pol i t i cal a c tiv ity . T h e yto ld h im h e h a d n o a u th o riz a tio n f ro m th e m to b e in v o lv e d in p o litic a l a c tiv ity. A ccor di ng t o pet i t i oner , aft erthi s i nci dent , he r ece i ved a t el ephone thr eat th a t sa m e d a ya n d th e n fo r th e n e x t fe w m o n th s h e a n d h is w ife re c e iv e d tw e lv e to fi ft een c al l s t hathe des cr i bed as thr eat eni ng and vul gar . H e t es t i fi ed thati n m any of the ca l l s t he ca l l erw oul d des cr i be w hatpet i t i onerhad bee n doi ng thatday w hi ch i ndi cat ed t o pet i t i onert hathe w as bei ng fol l ow ed. Pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe fin a llysto p p e d a n sw e rin g th e ir p h o n e a n d d isc o n n e c ted it. A lth o u g h h is a ffid a v it s t at es t hatt hes e w er e thr eat s “aga i ns tourl i ves ” he t es t i fi ed thatactual l ythe th re a ts w e re a g a in s t h is w ife ’s life o n ly. B eca us e of thes e t el ephone thr eat s , pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe de ci ded t o t ake a trip to g e t aw a yf

ro m e v e ry th in g . T h e ya tten d e d a M o rm o n c e leb ra tio n in-4-

N a u v o o , Ill in o is in Ju n e 2 0 0 2 fo r a p e rio d o f tw o w e e k s. T h e yre tu rn e d to Co l o mb i a , b u td e c i d e d t o mo v e t o Bo g o t a t o l i v e wi th p e t i t i o n e r ’ s mo th e r . On Sept ember25, 2002, pet i t i onerr ece i ved a w r i t t en dea th thr eatthatw as hand del i ver ed t o hi s m ot her ’ s hous e. T he l et t ers t at ed “[ w ] e know of al l y ourpol i t i cal an d info rm an t acti v it ies fo r y o u r M o rm o n cu lt ” a n d itg av e h im tw en ty -fo u r ho u rs t o di s appea rorhe w oul d be “e l i m i nat ed. ” A dm i n. R . at253. Pet i t i onerbought ai r l i ne t i cket s t o t he U ni t ed St at es and he a nd hi s w i fe l eftthe nextday . T hey ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on s i x- m onth vi s i t orvi s as . W hi l e theyw er e i n the U ni t ed St at es , pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe l earned thatFel i x M ar t i nez, anotherm ember of thei r pol i t i cal organizat i on , w as ass assi nated. A ft er heari ng this new s, p e titio n e r a p p lie d fo r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. Scope of Revi ew T he thr es hol d ques t i on forcons i der at i on i s “w hetherw e r evi ew ( 1) the B I A ’ s aff

i r m ance , ( 2) t he I J ’ s or i gi nal anal y s i s , or( 3) both agenc ydeci s i ons . ” Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 443 F. 3d 1197, 1202- 03 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s cas e, th e B IA iss u e d a sin g le- m e m b e r b rie f o rd e r. In su c h a c a se , the B IA ’s d e c isio n is t he final order and “w e w i l l no taffirm on groun ds rai sed i n the I J deci si on un l ess t heyar e r el i ed upon byt he B I A i n i t s aff i r m ance . ” Id. W e c an loo k to the IJ’s deci s i on, how ever , t o pr ovi de a mor e compl et e expl anat i on of the gr ounds r el i ed u p o n b yth e B IA . S e e id . “T h is i s esp ec ial lyap p rop ri ate w h ere the B IA-5-

in c o rp o ra tes b yre fe re n c e th e IJ’ s ra tio n a le o r re p e a ts a c o n d e n se d v e rsio n o f its r eas ons w hi l e al s o r el y i ng on t he I J ’ s m or e compl et e di s cus s i on. ” Id. St andar d of R evi ew “A l t hough al w ay s defe r ent i al t o agenc yfac t - fi ndi ng, w e mustens ur e that B I A concl us i ons ar e s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t ed bythe ava i l abl e evi dence . ” Id. T h is co u rtrev iew s a B IA d ec isi o n to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e fac tual fin d ing s “a re s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence cons i der i ng the r ecor d as a w hol e. ” E lz o u rv . A s h c r o ft, 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 5 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C r edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons “ar e s ubj ectt o the s ubs t ant i al evi dence t es t . ” Id. “W h ere the B IA ’s de cisi o n reli es u p o n an IJ’s i n it ial fin d ing s, w e m u st en su re t hats uch det erm i nat i ons ar e s ubs t ant i al l yr eas onabl e. ” Uan reroro , 443 F. 3d at 12 04 (quotat i on om i t t ed). T hese credi bil i tydeterm i nati on s w i l l be u ph el d “so l on g as t he IJ pr ov i des specifi c, cog ent r easons fo r di sbel i eving t he w i tness’ tes tim o n y . T h is s tan d a rd o f re v iew is a d e fe re n tial o n e , b u t w e d o n o t b lin d ly acc eptan I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatan al i en s eeki ng as y l um orr es tr i ct i on on r emoval i s notcr edi bl e. ” E lz our , 378 F. 3d at1152 ( quot at i on and ci t at i on o m itte d ). A n adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on m aybe bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es i n t he w i t nes s ’ t es t i m ony , l ack of s uffi ci entdet ai l , i m pl aus i bi l i ty , ort es t i m oni al d e m e a n o r. Id . a t 1 1 5 2 -1 1 5 3 . “A n IJ’ s fin d in g th a t an a p p lica n t’s te stim o n yis i m pl aus i bl e maynotbe bas ed upon s pecul at i on, conj ectur e, oruns uppor t ed-6-

per s onal opi ni on. ” Id. at1153. T hi s courti s bound bythe r eas ons gi ven bythe a g e n c y , a n d m a yn o t a ffir m o n o th e r g ro u n d s . Mi c ke v i c i u t e v . I NS , 327 F. 3d 1159, 1162- 63 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . T hi s cour tm ayr ever s e and r emand forfur ther p ro c e e d in g s w h e n th e IJ ’s c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n is n o t a d e q u a te ly su p p o rt e d . S e e C h a ib v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); E lz o u r, 378 F. 3d at 1154. D i s cus s i on Pet i t i onerbear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe i s a r efuge e, and t her efor e el i gi bl e foras y l um , bydemonstr at i ng thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on ort hathe has a w el l - founded fearof futur e per s ecut i on. S e e Ca s ta n e da v . I NS , 23 F. 3d 1576, 1578 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . Pet i t i oneras s er t s thathe has m ethi s bur den o f d em o n str ati n g that h e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e IJ concl uded, how ever , t hatpet i t i onerhad notm ethi s bur den bec aus e he ha d not sh o w n a g en u ine fea r of li v ing in C o lom b ia. T h is de term ination w as b ase d in p art on pet i t i oner ’ s deci s i on t o t r avel t o the U ni t ed St at es fortw o w eeks i n the s um m erof 2002 and then r etur n t o C ol om bi a eve n though he had be en s ubj ect ed to th re a ts b e fo re h e to o k th e trip . T h e IJ a lso d o u b ted p e tit io n e r’s c re d ib ili ty aboutt he thr eat s beca us e ther e w as an i ncons i s t encyi n pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony a b o u t w h e th e r b o th h is a n d h is w ife ’s life h a d b e e n th re a te n e d . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on i n a br i ef or der . T he or der s t at ed thati tw as pr ovi di ng s om e addi t i ons t o the I J ’ s deci s i on and then i tw enton-7-

t o s t at e thatt he B I A agr eed thatthe di s cr epanc yi n the t es t i m onyr egar di ng w ho r ece i ved the thr eat s and the pet i t i oner ’ s act i ons w i th r egar d t o r eturni ng vol unt ar i l yt o C ol om bi a i n 2002 s uppor t ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T he B I A i ncl uded an addi t i onal par agr aph gi vi ng fur thers peci fi c i nform at i on aboutthe inco n sist en cyin the test im o n y . B ec au se th e B IA ex p resslyad o p ted th e IJ’s deci s i on, w e ca n l ook t o t hatdeci s i on t o pr ovi de a mor e compl et e expl anat i on for th e g ro u n d s p ro v id e d b yth e B IA . See Uan reroro , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 4 . W e conc l ude thatt he I J di d nots uffi ci ent l ys uppor thi s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs a n d th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n d o e s n o t f u rth e r c lar if

yth e c re d ib ili tyiss u e . T h is co u rt ’s r evi ew i s confi ned t o t he r eas oni ng gi ven bythe I J [orthe B I A ] , and [the court ] w i l l noti ndepende nt l ys ear ch the r ecor d foral t ernat i ve bas es t o aff

i r m . I f an a gencydeci des a ca s e on a gr ound bel i eved by an appe l l at e courtt o be w r ong, the ca s e has t o be r emanded t o the a g e n c y. E lz our , 3 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 0 (q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). Incons is t entTes t i m ony B ot h t he I J and the B I A found s i gni fi cantthe i ncons i s t encybetw een pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyaboutt he t el ephone thr eat s he and hi s w i fe r ece i ved and the s t at ementi n hi s aff

i davi taboutt hos e thr eat s . I n the affi davi t , pet i t i oners t at ed “[a ] ft ert hi s dayt he t el ephone thr eat s and offens es s t ar t ed atdi ffe r enthour s of the d a y , so m e listed w h e re I h a d b e e n d u rin g th e d a ya n d w ith w h o m I h a d m e t, ot her s w er e onl yvul garand other s cont ai ned thr eat s agai ns tourl i ves . ”-8-

A dm i n. R . at21 2. D uri ng t he h eari ng , peti t i on er w as quest i on ed ab ou tthese tele p h o n e th re a ts: Q . . . . [T]he s e t el ephone c al l s thaty ou r ece i ved af t erN ovember of [ 20 01 ] and be fore y ou cam e t o the U nit ed S t at es the fir st t i m e, di d t heyeverthr eat en y ou w i th death? A . T heyt hr eat ened myw i fe a nd m e. Q . W i t h death? A . T h e d e a th th re a ts w e re d ire c ted to m yw ife . I th in k it w a s to fr i ght en me. Q . B utnotagai ns ty ou? A . N o . . . . Q . B ec au se y o u r st atem en t st ay s tha t som e o f th e thre ats w ere vul garand other s w er e thr eat s agai ns tourl i ves , butnow [ y o u ’re ] sa y in g it’s o n lya g a in st y o u r w ife , is th a t rig h t? A. Ye s , we a r e o n e . I u n d e r s t a n d th a ti f s o me o n e th r e a t e n s my w i fe, t heyt hr eat en me. Id. a t 8 9 . P e tit io n e r’s tes tim o n yv e rya b lye x p lain s w h yh e sta ted in th e a ffid a v it t hatt he thr eat s w er e aga i ns t“ourl i ves . ” B ecause p et i t i on er t est i fi ed thathe d i d n ot r ecei ve an ydeath threat s agai nst hi s ow n l i fe byphone, t he B I A not ed thatthi s w as i ncons i s t entw i th a not ar i zed s t at ementbys om eone know n t o pet i t i oner , C ar l os G uzman, w hi ch s t at ed that pet i t i onerr ece i ved dea t h t hr eat s byphone betw een D ece m berof 2002 and the s t ar tof 2003. T he B I A ’ s rul i ng s eems t o confus e tw o per i ods of thr eat s ( the 2001 t hr eat s and the 2002- 2003 t hr eat s ) and fa i l s t o i ncl ude a di s cus s i on of addi t i onal r el evantr ecor d evi dence . T he thr eat s di s cus s ed i n the t es t i m onyquot ed above o c c u rre d w h e n p e tit io n e r a n d h is w ife w e re still l iv in g in Ib a g u e . T h e th re a ts r efe r r ed t o i n M r . G uzman’ s s t at ementoccurr ed af t ertheyl eftC ol om bi a i n 2002-9-

an d w ere li v ing in the U n it ed S tat es. W h en h e w as a sk ed ab o u t M r. G u zm an ’s sta tem e n t late r in th e h e a rin g , M r. M o sc o so -M o ra les e x p lain e d th a t th re a ts cont i nued aga i ns thi m even a ft erhe l eftthe countrythr ough cal l s m ade t o the h ig h s c h o o l w h e re h e h a d w o rk e d a n d to h is p o litic a l p a rt y ’s h e a d q u a rt e rs . Id. at 9 0 .

“ In c o n sis ten c ies o f les s th a n su b sta n tial im p o rta n c e fo r w h ich a p lau sib le e x p lan a tio n is o ffe re d c a n n o t fo rm th e so le b a sis fo r a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng. ” S e c a i da - Ro s a l e s v . I NS , 331 F. 3d 297, 308 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s i ncons i s t encyi dent i fi ed bythe B I A i s of l es s than s ubs t ant i al im p o rta n c e b e c a u se re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r o r n o t p e tit io n e r re c e iv e d d e a th th re a ts byphone, i ti s undi s put ed thathe r ece i ved a de ath thr eati n w r i t i ng, w hi ch p ro m p ted h im im m e d iate lyto flee f ro m C o lo m b ia. T h is w ritten d e a th th re a t is n o t discu ssed b ythe B IA in it s d ec isi o n an d g o es to the h ea rto f p eti ti o n er’s as y l um cl ai m . M or eover , pet i t i oneroffe r ed a pl aus i bl e expl anat i on forw hyhe s ta te d in th e a ffid a v it th a t th e te le p h o n e th re a ts w e re a g a in s t “ o u r l iv e s .” Tri p t o the Uni t ed Stat es i n 2002 B ot h t he B I A and the I J al s o found s i gni fi cantthe fa ctthatpet i t i onerand hi s w i fe de ci ded vol unt ar i l yt o r eturn t o C ol om bi a af t erthei rtw o- w eek s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es i n J une 2002. T he I J s t at ed thatthi s demonstr at ed thatpet i t i oner an d h is w ife w ere n o t afraid to li v e in C o lom b ia. P eti ti o n er e x p lai n ed , h o w ev er, t he r eas ons forhi s r etur n aft ert hi s i ni t i al vi s i tt o the U ni t ed St at es . B efor e they-10-

l efton t hei rt r i p, pet i t i onerhad r ece i ved one thr eati n per s on t o s t op hi s pol i t i cal act i vi t yand had r ece i ved thr eat s overthe t el ephone a gai ns thi s w i fe. Pet i t i oner t es t i fi ed thatt heydi d notcons i ders t ay i ng i n the U ni t ed St at es atthe t i m e of that t ri p b ecause they“w ere und er the il l usi on that [the tel eph on e t hreat s w ere] j ust goi ng t o be s om ethi ng t hatw oul d pas s . ” A dm i n R . at93- 94. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed t hathe di d notappl yforas y l um on thattr i p beca us e he “ thoughtthateverythi ng wa s g o i n g t o b e fi n e . [ He t h o u g h t ] th a tth e p e o p l e th a twe r e p r o t e c t i n g [ h i m] w oul d be abl e t o pr ot ect[hi m ] . ” Id. a t 9 0 . A lth o u g h p e tit io n e r th o u g h t h e c o u ld still l iv e sa fe lyin C o lo m b ia, u p o n h is r etur n fr om hi s t r i p t o t he U ni t ed St at es , pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe t ook the pr eca ut i on of m ovi ng fr om t hei rt ow n t o the capi t ol ci tyof B ogot a. T hi s m ove, how ever , di d notpr ot ectt hem. W i thi n thr ee mont hs , pet i t i onerr ece i ved a l et t er th re a te n in g h is life if

h e d id n o t le a v e w ith in tw e n ty-fo u r h o u rs . S e e id . at77, 253. Pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe t ook the thr eats er i ous l y , fl ed i m m edi at el yt o the U n ite d S ta te s , a n d u ltim a te ly so u g h t a s y lu m . T he I J and B I A ’ s r el i ance on the fa ctthatpet i t i onerand hi s w i fe vol unt ar i l yr etur ned t o C ol om bi a i n J une 2002 does notcons i deral l of the re lev a n t in fo rm a tio n . “W h e n m a k in g a c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , the IJ is r equi r ed t o cons i der‘ t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , and allrel evan tf actors . ’” Uan reroro , 443 F. 3d at1210 ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ) . T he I J and B I A ’ s r eas oni ng i s i ncompl et e bec aus e i tfai l s t o cons i derpet i t i oner ’ s act i ons-11-

a f ter h is re tu rn to C o lo m b ia: th e m o v e to B o g o ta, th e re c e ip t o f th e w ritten d e a th t hr eat , and the i m m edi at e depa r tur e forthe U ni t ed St at es . A l though i tw as app ropri at e for t he B IA t o co nsi der pet i t i on er’ s volunt aryreturn i n 2 00 2 as a fac t ori n i t s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, i tal one does not“r i s e t o the l evel of

‘ s ubs t ant i al evi dence ’ t o s uppor tan adve r s e dec i s i on on [pet i t i oner ’ s ] cl ai m s for r el i ef. ” Uan reroro , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 1 . A dd it ion a l R ea so n s P ro vide dby the IJ T h e IJ stated tw o o ther rea so n s fo r i ts ad v erse cre d ibil ityd ec isi o n that w ere notm ent i oned byt he B I A . T hes e addi t i onal r eas ons , how ever , do notpr ovi de s uffi ci ents uppor tfort he adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he I J s t at ed thathe b e liev e d th a t p e tit io n e r’s c o n d u c t sh o w e d th a t h e w a s n o t af ra id to re tu rn to h is nati ve co un t ry . S pecifi cal l y , he st at ed thathe d i d n ot bel i eve thatpeti t i on er w as a g e n u in e a sy lu m se e k e r b e c a u se p e tit io n e r d id n o t lea v e a f ter th e a lleg e d ly th re a ten in g lette r w a s h a n d e d to h im . T h is s tate m e n t is in d ire c t co n tra d ictio n to r ecor d evi dence . Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thatthe s ame dayhe r ece i ved the w r i t t en death t hr eatl et t er , he pur chas ed the pl ane t i cket s t o come t o the U ni t ed St at es and t heyl eftt he nextday . A dm i n. R . at77- 78. Second, t he I J found i thar d t o bel i eve thatpet i t i onerdi d notappl yfor a sy lu m im m e d iate lya f ter c o m in g to th e U n ited S tate s, b u t in ste a d w a ited u n til s om eone i n hi s or gani zat i on w as ki l l ed. T hi s fi ndi ng i s i m pr oper l ybas ed on u n s u p p o rt e d p e rs o n a l o p in io n . See Elz our , 378 F. 3d at1153. T he fa ctthat-12-

pet i t i onerw ai t ed t o appl yforas y l um unt i l he l earned of Fel i x M ar t i nez’ s m ur der d o e s n o t u n d e rm in e h is c laim th a t h e h a s a fe a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n ; in ste a d , it s uppor t s i t . Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed i n hi s aff i davi tand atthe hea r i ng thathe di d not in te n d to file fo r a s y lu m w h e n h e a n d h is w ife in itia lly f le d th e c o u n tr y . A d m in . R . at 7 8 ; 2 1 3 . H e in ten d e d “ [j]u st to lea v e th e sc e n e fo r a b it t o c a lm t hi ngs dow n. ” Id. at78. B utonce a notherper s on fr om hi s pol i t i cal or gani zat i on w a s a ss a ss in a ted , itb e c a m e c lea r th a t th e re c o u ld b e n o sa fe tyfo r th e m in C o lo m b ia . Id. at78- 80. T he w r i t t en dea th thr eatcombi ned w i th the ac tual m ur derof one of

t hei rcol l eague s pr ovi ded pet i t i onerw i th a nec es s arypi ece of o bjecti v e e v iden ce to su p p o rth is cl aim fo r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n . S e e Wira n sa n e v . A sh c ro ft , 366 F. 3d 889, 893 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( r equi r i ng s how i ng of obj ect i ve bas i s forfea rof futur e per s ecut i on by“cr edi bl e, di r ect , and s peci fi c evi dence ”) . T he I J fai l ed t o addr es s thi s r el evantevi dence . C oncl us i on B ec au se “ [t]he rea so n s p rese n ted b ythe IJ a n d rep ea ted in p art bythe B IA n eith er ind ividu all yn o r co ll ec ti v elyco n sti tute su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt [the age ncy ’ s ] fi nal det erm i nat i on, ” Uan reroro , 44 3 F. 3d a t12 11 , w e RE V ER SE-13-

th e B IA ’s fin a l o rd e r a n d R E M A N D fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge