FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 25, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble David G. Trag er, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. [ 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- 16419

________________________ B I A N os . A 77- 006- 166 & A 97- 209- 929 R A M O N A N T O N I O D E L G A D O , C A R M E N Y E L I T Z A D E L G A D O , R A M O N A N T O N I O D E L G A D O M A Z A , P e titio n e r s , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 25, 2007) B ef ore B A R K E T T and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T R A G E R , D i stri ct * Judg e. P E R C U R I A M:Th eDe lg ado s initi ally re qu e ste d re lie f u

nder t heUnite d N atio nsConventi on Ag ains t 1 Torture(“CAT” ). The IJand B IA denied relief, a nd the Delg ados do not challeng e this decision. Th ere fo re , th ey

havea ba ndon e d th eissueand

wedono t di scus s it

fu rt her. Sepulve da

v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 R a m on A nt oni o D e l ga do ( “ D e l ga do” ) , hi s w i f e C a rm e n Y e l i t z aD e l ga do ( “ C a rm e n” ) , a nd the i ra dul ts on R a m on D e l ga do ( “ R a m on” ) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ the D e l ga dos ” ) , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of V e ne z ue l a , pe t i t i on thi s c ourtf orr e vi e w of

the B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’s (“B IA ”) af firm an ce o f th e I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e r s o f

r e m o v a l a n d d e n ia ls o f a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231. I n the i rpe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , the y c ha l l e nge ( 1) the 1 de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe i ra s y l um appl i c a t i ons w e r e unt i m e l y , ( 2) the de ni a l of w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l r e lie f

, a n d ( 3 ) th e d e n ia l o f

d e r iv a tiv e b e n e f

its f o rC a rm e n . A f t e ror a l a r gum e nta nd ar e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on a s t o the f i r s ti s s ue , a nd gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a s t o the s e c ond. T he f i na l i s s ue be f

or e us i s one of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n thi s c i r c ui t : w he the rape t i t i one r ’ s s pous e i s e l i gi bl e f or d e r iv a tiv e b e n e f

its u n d e rth e w ith h o ld in g s ta tu te . W e c o n c lu d e th a t s h e is n o t; a c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the pe t i t i on on thi s gr ound. I . Ba c k g r o und D e l ga do, C a rm e n, a nd R a m on w e r e a dm i tt e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s on di ff er entdays i n 1 99 9. E ac h rem ai ned b ey on d the expi ra t i on peri od of hi s or her vi s aa nd r e c e i ve d not i c e s t o appe a rc ha r gi ng the m w i th r e m ovabi l i ty . D e l ga do a nd3

R am o n fi l ed sep arat e ap p l i cat i o n s fo r asyl u m i n 2 0 0 3 . C arm en p ro ceed ed as a benefi ci ary of D el gado ’ s app l i ca t i on . T he appl i ca t i on s w er e c on sol i dat ed before th e IJ. T he ba s i s f

orthe r e que s t e d r e l i e f

i s a s f ol l ow s a c c or di ng t o D e l ga do’ s a nd R am on ’ s t es t i m on y a tthe re m ov al hear i ng : In 19 97 , D el gado , a f orm erm i l i t ary offi ci al , and R am on part i ci pat ed bri ef l y i n an o rgani za t i on supp ort i ng V enez uel an P re si dent i al cand i dat e H ug o C havez l ed by re t i re d m i l i t ary per sonn el . A ft er att en d i n g th ree m eet i n g s, D el g ad o l earn ed th atth e o rg an i zat i o n p l an n ed t o u se vi ol e nc e t o a c hi e ve i t s goa l s , a nd he de nounc e d the or ga ni z a t i on a nd s poke out a ga i ns tthe us e of

vi ol e nc e . I n M a r c h 1998, he r e c e i ve d s e ve r a l thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s . T he r e a f

t e r , tw o unknow n m a s ke d m e n appr oa c he d D e l ga do a nd R a m on, p o in te d w h a t tu rn e d o u t to b e u n lo a d e d g u n s a t th e m , a n d p u lle d th e tr ig g e r s . T hese m en w arned D el gado and R am on thatthey w ou l d b e dea d i f they c on t i nu ed t o speak ou t . D el gado re po rt ed the i nci dentt o the po l i ce . In the fol l ow i ng w ee ks, on tw o separ at e occ as i on s, D el gado di sc ov er ed that the brakes on hi s c arhad b ee n cut , hi s t i re s w er e s l as hed, hi s w i nd ow s w er e b ro k en , an d so m eo n e v an d al i zed h i s car w i th p o l i t i cal g raffi t i . B o th o f th ese i nc i de nt s oc c urr e d w hi l e the c a rw a s pa rke d i n hi s hous i ng c om pl e x. A ga i n, D el gado re po rt ed these i nci dent s t o the po l i ce . D e l ga do c ont i nue d t o r e c e i ve thr e a t e ni ng c a l l s , a nd i n M a y 1998, f i ve4

u n k n o w n m e n a tta c k e d R a m o n , w h o w a s b e a te n u n til h e w a s a lm o s t u n c o n s c io u s . T he m e n t ol d R a m on tha tthe r e w oul d be f ur the rc ons e que nc e s i f

D e l ga do c ont i nue d hi s pol i t i c a l a c t i vi t i e s . R a m on r e c e i ve d m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt , a nd D e l ga do re po rt ed thi s i nci dentt o the po l i ce . D el gado ul t i m at el y dec i ded thatthe fa m i l y had t o l eav e V en ezu el a, an d h e an d h i s fam i l y cam e t o th e U n i t ed S t at es i n A u g u st 1 9 9 8 , b u t th e y r e m a in e d o n ly as h o rt tim e b e f o r e D e lg a d o a n d C a rm e n r e tu rn e d to V e n e z u e la . R a m o n s ta y e d in th e U n ite dS ta te s e x c e p t f o rab r ie f tr ip b a c kh o m e . B a c kin V e n e z u e la , D e lg a d o w e n t in to h id in g b u t r e - e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s in O c to b e r1 9 9 8 , th is tim e le a v in g C a rm e n in V e n e z u e la . D e lg a d o r e tu rn e d to V e n e z u e lain M a r c h 1 9 9 9 , w h e r e h e f o u n d a n o th e rth r e a te n in g m e s s a g e o n h is a ns w e r i ng m a c hi ne . R e a l i z i ng he w a s s t i l l i n da nge r , D e l ga do r e turne d t o the U ni t ed S t at es i n A pri l 19 99 ; C arm en re turned i n D ec em ber 199 9. R am on had ree n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 9 . D e l ga do di d notappl y f ora s y l um i m m e di a t e l y , i n pa rtbe c aus e i m m i gr a t i on a tt orne y s a l l e ge dl y ha d t ol d hi m tha the w a s note l i gi bl e f orr e l i e f . I n 2001, D e l ga do r e c e i ve d a n i nvi t a t i on f r om the V e ne z ue l a n C ons ul a t e , w hi c h he i nt e rpr e t e d a s ar e m i nde rtha tC ha ve z ’ s s upport e r s c oul d f i nd hi m . I n 2003, D e lg a d o ’s a tto rn e y in V e n e z u e lar e c e iv e d ad e a th th r e a t w a rn in g D e lg a d o n o t to r e turn. T he D e l ga dos the n f i l e d the i rappl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v al, an d C A T re li ef , att ac h in g th e p o li ce re p o rts a n d re p o rts o f R am o n ’s5

m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t f

o llo w in g th e a tta c ko n h im . T he I J de ni e d r e l i e f

, c onc l udi ng tha tthe c ons ol i da t e d a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s t i m e - ba rr e d a nd tha t , a l though D e l ga do a nd R a m on w e r e c r e di bl e , w i th the e xc e pt i on of

the a l l e ge d 2003 thr e a tt o D e l ga do’ s a tt orne y , the e ve nt s ha d not es t abl i shed pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . T he B IA af fi rm ed wi th o u tc o m m e n t . T h e De l g a d o s n o w p e t i t i o n th i s c o u rtf o rr e v i e w. I I . D i s c u s s i on T he D e l ga dos c ha l l e nge the I J a nd B I A ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe i ra s y l um appl i ca t i on s w er e unt i m el y and thatthey f ai l ed t o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on base d o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d s th a t w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w the t i m e l i ne s s i s s ue , D e l ga do a nd R a m on w e r e note nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f , a nd C a rm e n w a s note nt i t l e d t o de r i va t i ve be ne f i t s . W e a ddr e s s e a c h of the s e i n turn. A . A s y l um W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. B r ooks v. A s h c r o f t, 2 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um m us tbe f

i l e d w i thi n one y e a ra f

t e rthe da t e of

the al i en’ s arr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es . 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2)( B ). U nd er§ 1 15 8(a) (3), thi s c ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der a n u nt i m el y app l i ca t i on un l es s the al i en ca n dem on stra t e e xtra ordi naryci rc um st ance s r el at i ng t o the del ayi n fi l i ng an ap p l i c a t i o n w i th i n th e o n e - y e a rp e r i o d . Se e i d . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; M e n d o z av . U . S.The Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. 2 This panel is bound by

this decision unless it is overr uled by the U.S. Supreme Court or 3 this court sitti ngen banc . Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F .3d 1292, 1300 n.8, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2001). 6 A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T hi s rul e w a s nota l t e r e d by the ex p an sio n o f ju risd icti o n in th e R E A L ID A ct. S ee C h ac o n -B o tero v . U .S . A tt ’y 2 G e n ., 4 2 7 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . D e l ga do a nd hi s f

a m i l y e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orthe l a s tt i m e on d if f e r e n t d a te s in 1 9 9 9 , b u t d id n o t f ile ap p lic a tio n s f

o ra s y lu m u n til J u n e 2 0 0 3 . Th e I J d e t e rmi n e d b o th th a tth e D e l g a d o s f a i l e d t o c o mp l y w i th th e o n e - y e a rt i me lim it, a n d th a t th e r e w e r e n o e x tr a o r d in a ry o rc h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld to ll th e o n e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . S e e M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . I n th e ir appeal t o the B IA , the D el gado s di d n otra i se the t i m el i ness i ss ue. T here fore , they h av e n o t ex h au sted it , an d w e n ee d n o t co n sid erit . F er n an d ez -B er n al v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 257 F . 3d 1304, 1317 n. 13 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . E ve n i f w e w e r e t o a ddr e s s the 3 i ss ue, t i m el i ness i s nota quest i on of l aw . W e, there fore , l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the I J a nd B I A ’ s de c i s i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on a s t o the a s y l um cl ai m s. B . W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al W h e r e th e B I A a d o p ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n , w e r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l-7

N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . L e ga l de t e rm i na t i ons ar e r evi ew ed de no vo , and factual fi nd i ng s are re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e v id e n c e te s t. D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e m u s t a f

f irm th e d e c is io n b e lo w “if it is s u p p o rte d b y r e a s o n ab le , s u b s ta n tia l, a n d p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e o n th e r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d a s aw h o l e . ” A n t i p o v av . U . S. A tt’y G e n ., 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . U n d e rth is hi ghl y de f

e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w , de ni a l of

r e l i e f m a y be r e ve r s e d onl y i f the evi dence w ou l d com pel a r ea sonabl e f ac tfi nd ert o con cl ud e thatthe re qu i si t e f ear of pe r s e c ut i on e xi s t s . I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S . C t . 812, 81 5 n . 1, 11 7 L . E d. 2d 38 (199 2). A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f he c a n s how tha thi s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof hi s r a c e , r e l i gi on, n a tio n a lity , m e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . Me n d o z a , 3 2 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 8 7 ; s e e a l s o I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . “ An a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon hi s r e turn t o the c ountry i n que s t i on. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3 d at1 2 8 7 . T h e al i en can m eeth i s b u rd en b y sh o w i n g ei th er: (1 ) “ p ast p e r s e c u tio n in h is c o u n try b a s e d o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d ,” in w h ic h c a s e ar e b u ttab le pres um pt i on i s c re at ed thathi s l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened i f he r eturned to h is c o u n try ; o r( 2 ) “af u tu r e th r e a t to h is lif

e o rf r e e d o m o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d inWhere the D elg ados experienc ed past persecution, there is a rebuttable presumption of 4 futurepers e cuti on , a

nd theburden s hif

ts to th eg ov ernment to s ho w b oth that ( 1) re loc atio n is possible within Venezuela, and ( 2) it is reasona ble to expect the Delg ados to reloc ate. See Arboleda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 434 F .3d 1220, 1223-24 (11th Cir. 2006). Reg ardingthe g overnment’s contention that, bec ause Chave z has been e lected, there no long er w ould be any thre ats to th eDe lg ado s, theCountr y Repo rt state s th at th erehavebe en at le a st a do zen po litic ally motivated killings after Chavez’s ele ction. The IJexpli citly

found that De lgado’s claims of thre ats to his attorney in 2003 werenot 5 cre dible and the De lgados do not specifically challeng e this finding on a ppeal. B eca

use the Delg ados did not raise theissue before the B IA, they have not exhausted it. I

NA § 242(d) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); F erna ndez-Bernal v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 257 F .3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 20 01 ). No ta

bly, th eIJ found

theremainder o f D e lg ado ’ste stimony re g ardingtheoth er inc idents c re dib l e . Thu s , w ec o n s i d er th o s eev ent s a

b o utwh i c hD e l g ado t e s ti f i e d c re dib ly. 8 h is c o u n try .” A l N a

jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . 4

“ [P ] er se cut i on i s an extre m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than a few i sol at ed in c id e n ts o f

v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n .” S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the ra n a l i e n ha s s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the I J m us tc ons i de rthe c um ul a t i ve ef fe ct s of the i nci dent s. R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 47 9 F . 3d 76 2, 76 6 (11 th C i r. 5 20 07 ). A f t e rathor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e a r e c om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude tha tthe I J a n d B I A e rr e d b y d e n y in g D e lg a d o a n dR a m o n w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. D el gado and R am on w er e s t op ped b y m as ked m en w ho po i nt ed un l oaded w eapo ns atthem and p ul l ed the tri gg er s. A fe w m on ths l at er , R am on w as att ac ked a n d s e v e r e ly b e a te n . I n b o th c a s e s , th e u n k n o w n a tta c k e r s s ta te d th a t th e s e e v e n ts w er e w arni ng s and there w ou l d b e c on se qu ence s f or D el gado ’ s pol i t i ca lUnlike the facts in Sil va, in this case, theattackers made statement showingthe 6 motivation of their attacks, a nd, duringthe sec ond attack, spe cifically identified Ramon as De lg ado ’sso n b e fo rebe g inningto b e at him. 9 o p p o s itio n . T h e u n d is p u te d te s tim o n y in d ic a te d th a t R a m o n w a s a tta c k e d a s r e s u lt of hi s a nd hi s f

a the r ’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni ons . T he r e c or d the r e f or e c om pe l s the concl usi on thatthe att ac ks w er e on accountof D el gado ’ s pol i t i ca l op i ni on , even though D e l ga do a nd R a m on w e r e unabl e t o s pe c i f i c a l l y na m e ori de nt i f

y the a tt a c ke r s . C f

. S i l vav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( a s s um i ng w i thoutde c i di ng tha tthe i nc i de nti n w hi c h the unknow n gunm e n s hota tS i l va qua l i f i e d a s pe r s e c ut i on, buthol di ng tha t , be c aus e S i l vat e s t i f i e d tha ts he di d not kn ow w ho the gu nm en w er e, the re cord di d n otcom pel the concl usi on thatshe w as att ac ked b as ed up on her pol i t i ca l op i ni on ). A l tho ug h eac h o f the i nci dent s t aken 6 s e pa r a t e l y w oul d note s t abl i s h pe r s e c ut i on, s e e S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231, w he n c ons i de r e d t oge the rthe e ve nt s c om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tR a m on a nd D e l ga do s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n d u e to th e irp o litic a l o p in io n s . R u iz , 4 7 9 F .3 d a t 7 6 6 . T he r e f or e , w e c onc l ude tha tba s e d on the c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof the tw o a tt a c ks , the c ont i nue d thr e a t e ni ng c a l l s , a nd the i nc i de nt s i nvol vi ng the c a r , D e l ga do a nd R a m on ha ve m e tthe i rbur de n. A c c or di ngl y , w e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a s t o D e l ga do a n d R a m o n . C . D e r iv a tiv e B e n e f

its T he f i na l i s s ue , a nd one of

f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n thi s c i r c ui t , i s w he the rthe10

w ith h o ld in g s ta tu te p r o v id e s f o rd e r iv a tiv e b e n e f

its f o ra n a lie n ’s s p o u s e . I n i nt e rpr e t i ng as t a tut e , ourf i r s ts t e p “ i s t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe l a ngua ge a t is s u e h a s ap la in a n d u n a m b ig u o u s m e a n in g w ith r e g a r d to th e p a rtic u la rd is p u te i n the ca se . ” D ’ A ng el o v . C on A gra F oo ds, Inc. , 42 2 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 35 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . “W h e r e C o n g r e s s in c lu d e s p a rtic u la rla n g u a g e in o n e s e c tio n o f as ta tu te bu tom i t s i ti n ano ther s ec t i on of the sa m e A ct , i ti s gener al l y pre sum ed that C on gres s a ct s i nt ent i on al l y and pu rposel y i n the di spar at e i ncl usi on or excl usi on . ” R us s e l l o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 464 U . S . 16, 23, 104 S . C t . 296, 300, 78 L . E d. 2d 17 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A ls o , “[ w ]h e r e C o n g r e s s k n o w s h o w to s a y s om e thi ng butc hoos e s nott o, i t s s i l e nc e i s c ontr ol l i ng. ” C B S I nc . v. P ri m eT i m e 24 Joi ntV enture, 24 5 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 26 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng In re G r i f f i th, 206 F . 3d 1389, 1394 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons o m itte d , a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) . A l though the a s y l um s t a tut e e xpl i c i t l y c r e a t e s de r i va t i ve r i ght s f orthe s pous e of

ape t i t i one r , the w i thhol di ng s t a tut e c ont a i ns no m e nt i on of de r i va t i ve r ig h ts . C o m p a r e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) a n d 8 C .F .R . § § 2 0 7 .7 a n d 2 0 8 .2 1 , w ith 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1. C on gres s’ s s i l ence thu s di ct at es ou r hol di ng i n thi s c as e: there ar e no d er i vat i ve benefi t s a ss oci at ed w i th a grantof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . S ee al so H uang v. I. N . S . , 43 6 F . 3d 89 , 95 (2d C i r. 20 06 ) ( denyi ng deri vat i ve benefi t s) ; A l i v. A shcr oft , 39 4 F . 3d 78 0, 78 2 n . 1 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( sa m e) .11

A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the pe t i t i on a s t o C a rm e n’ s c l a i m f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. I I I . C o nc l us i o n. B a s e d o n th e f

o r e g o i n g , we D I SM I SS the pe t i t i on i n pa rta s t o the a s y l um cl ai m , w e GR AN T the pe t i t i on i n pa rta s t o D e l ga do’ s a nd R a m on’ s w i thhol di ng cl ai m s, and w e DE NY C a rm e n’ s c l a i m f orde r i va t i ve be ne f

i t s . T he B I A ’ s de c i s i on i s VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on.