### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUN E 17, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1380 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y N os. A 95- 547- 246 & A 95- 547- 247 LEONARDO SALA MANCA, NANCY SOTO, Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 17, 200 5) Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Leo na rd o S al am an ca an d h is wife , Nanc y So to (“ Sal am an ca” a nd“ So to ,” co lle ct ive ly , “ the pe tit ion er s” ), thr oughc ouns el , pe tit ionthi s c ourt f or r ev ie wof2

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al ’ s ( “ BI A ’ s” ) or de r sum m ar ily a ff irm ing the Im m igr at ionJud ge ’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) de ci sio n to de ny the m a sy lum and w ith hol din g of re m ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ionand N at ion al ity A ct ( “ IN A ”) . B ec au se the pe tit ion er s’ im

m igr at ionpr oc ee din gs c om m en ce d a ft er

Apr il 1, 199 7, the pe rm an en t r

ule s of the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ionRe fo rm

and I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity A ct of 199 6, P ub. L . N o. 104 -2 08, 110 S ta t. 300 9 ( 1996 ) (“ II RI RA ”) , gov er n th ei r pe tit ionf or r ev ie w . Whe n th e BI Aiss ue s ade ci sio n, w e re vie wthat de ci sio n, ex cep t t o t he ex te nt th atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al N ajjar v. A shc rof t , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . B ec au se the BI Ain thi s c as e stated that the IJ’ s decision was “ the final agency determ ination ,” we will “ review the IJ’ s analy sis as if it we re the [ BIA ’ s] .” See id. O n a ppe al , the pe tit ion er s a sse rt that the I J f

ai le d to e xpl ai n w hy

the thr eats dir ec te d to w ar ds S al am an ca and the a ssa

ult s he e ndur ed

w er e not pol iti ca lly m ot iv at ed , as t he IJ f

ai le d t o a dd res s t he att ack s an d t hr eat s wi th an y sp eci fic it y . T he pe tit ion er s c ont en d th at S al am an ca

te sti fi ed , and the e vid en ce sho w ed , that he wa s invo lved in th e Conservative Par ty , a group which the Revolutio nary Ar m ed Forces of Colom

bia (“ FA RC”) , one of the m aj or param ilitary groups in Colom

bia, fo und “ obj ec tio nable . ” T he pe tit ion er s a lle ge that S al am an ca r ec ei ve d num er ous threatening calls from

FA RC m em

bers, and that the persecution escalated, a s3

Sa lam an ca

w as sho t by

F A RC m em

be rs on Augus t 12 , 199 5. T he se thr eats and attacks, the petitioners contend, w ere m ore than m ere harassm ent, and the IJ erre d in f ind ing that S al am an ca

w as not pe rs ec ute d onthe ba sis of apr ote ct ed

gr ound . Inli ght of the e vid en ce in the r ec or d, part ic ularl y the e vid en ce dis cu ssi ng the r ole of gue ri lla gr oups in Co lom

bia , the pe tit ion er s c ont en d, ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d fearth athe was e nd an ge redon acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. T o th e ex te nt tha t the I J’ s de ci sio n w as ba se d onale ga l de te rm inatio n, our re vie wis de novo . M

oham m ed v . A shc rof

t , 261 F. 3d 12 44, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2001 ). T he I J’ s f

ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is not

e nti tle d to a sy lum

m ust be up he ldif i t i s s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See Mazariegos v. U. S. A tt’y G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ; cf . IN A § 242(b)(4)( B), 8 U. S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ( pr ovi din g th at “ adm ini str at ive f

ind ing s of

f ac t are c onc lus ive unl es s any

r ea sona ble a dj udi cator

w oul d be c om

pe lle d to c onc lud e to the co ntr ar y ”) . U nde r thi s hi ghl y

de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , ade nia l of

a sy lum m ay be r ev er se d on ly

if the e vid en ce w oul d c om pe l a r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er to fi nd th atth e req ui si te fearof p ers ecu ti on ex is ts . IN S v . E lia s- Za ca ria s , 502 U . S. 478 , 481 n .1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 n.1, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or as y lu m . See I N A§ 20 8( a) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ); Se pulve da v . U

. S. A tt’ y G en . ,4

40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), supe rse din g 378 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2004 ). T he A tto rn ey

G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t a sy lum if the a lie n m ee ts the IN A’ s definition of a “ refugee. ” See IN A § 208(b)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(b)(1); Se pulve da , 401 F . 3d at 12 30. A“ re fu ge e” is: any person who is outs ide any country of such person’ s nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e an y c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua lly r es ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or herself of the protec tion o f, that country because of per secution or a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a particular social group, or political op in io n . . . . 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng st atut ory “ refu ge e” s ta tu s. A l N

ajj ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84. I f the appl ic an t m ee ts this bur de n, the n th e A tto rn ey G en er al m ay

e xe rc ise his dis cr et ionto gr an t the ap pl ic an t as y lu m . Id . In this ins tance, because the IJ c onclud ed that Silva failed to est ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m , th ere was no ex erci se of d is cret io n. Ac co rd i n g l y, we n ee do n l y ad dre s s wh et h ers ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e I J ’s co nc lus ionthat S ilv a fa ile d to e sta bli sh tha t sh e w as statut or ily e lig ibl e fo r as y lum an d w ith hol din g of

r em ova l.5

A n a lie n is e nti tle d to a sy lum if he or she c ane sta

bli sh, w ithspe ci fi c an d cr ed ibl e ev ide nc e: ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n ona cc ount of his or he r m em be rs hip in a particular social group, political opini on, or other statutorily listed factor, or (2) a

“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that hi s or

he r m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, po li ti cal op in io n, o r ot he r st atut or il y li st edfact orwil l ca us e fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) , ( b) ; Se pulve da , 401 F . 3d at 12 30- 31. “ [A ] n a ppl ic an t m

ust de m onstrate that hi s or

he r fe ar of pe rs ec uti on i s su

bj ec tiv el y ge nui ne and objec tively

rea sonable.” A l N

ajj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. If the a lien dem onstrates past persecution , he or she is presum ed to have a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on unle ss the gov er nm en t c anr eb ut the pr es um pti on. 8 C . F. R § 208 . 13( b) (1 ); Se pulve da , 401 F. 3d at 123 1. I f, however, the a lie n do es not

e sta bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on, he or she be ar s th e bur de n of showing a well-f

ound ed fear of per secution byshowing that (1) he or she fears persecution based on his or her m em bership in a particular social group, political opi nio n, or

oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor ; ( 2) the re is a re as ona ble pos sib ili ty

he or she w ill suf

fe r pe rs ec uti on i f re m ove d to his or he r na tiv e co untry ; and ( 3) he or s h e c o u l dn o ta v o i dp e r s e c u t i o n b y re l o c a t i n g t o an o t h e r p a rto f h i s o r h e r c o u n t ry, if u nd er al l t he cir cu m st an ces , itwou ldbe reas on ab le to ex pe ctrel oc at io n. See 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b)(2), ( 3)(i).6

Establishing a nexus between the statutorily listed factor and the fe ared pe rs ec uti on “ re qui re s th e al ie n to pr es en t sp ec if ic , de ta ile d f

ac ts s how ing agoo d reason to fear

that he or she will be sin gle d ou t f or pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of ” the st atut or il y

li st edfact or . A l N

ajj ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). “ ‘ [T ] he statut e pr ote ct s a ga ins t pe rs ec uti on n ot o nly by gov er nm en t f or ce s bu t a lso by

non gove rn m en ta l gr oups that the gov er nm en t cannot control.’ ” Sanc he z v . U . S. A tt’ y G en eral , 392 F. 3d 43 4, 437 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (quot ing Sot elo-

A qui je v . Sla tte ry , 17 F . 3d 3 3, 37 ( 2nd Ci r. 199 4) ( al te ratio n in ori gi na l) ( di sc us si ng INA § 2 08 , 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 , th e as y lu m st atut e)). Evidence c onsis tent with acts of private violence or that m erely shows that an ind ivi dua l ha s be enthe vic tim of c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

doe s no t c onst itu te e vid en ce of pe rs ecu ti on on a st atut or il y pro te ct edgro un ds . A bdi llev . A shc rof t , 242 F . 3d 4 77, 494-95 (3rd Cir. 2001 ). N ei the r the I N Anor

the r eg ulatio ns d ef

ine “pe rs ec uti on. ” W e ha ve indicated that “ persecution is an extrem e concept, requiring m ore than a fe w iso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, and tha t m er e hara ssm en t does not am ount to persecution.” Se pulve da , 401 F . 3d at 12 30 ( int er na l qu otatio ns an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). O the r co urts h av e he ld tha t, to be an a ct of pe rs ec uti on, the be havio r m

ust thr eate n de ath, pun ish m en t, or the inf lic tio n of sub stanti al harm

or7

su ffer in g. See Shar if v. INS , 87 F . 3d 9 32, 935 ( 7thCi r. 199 6) . “ T hr eats a lon e ge ne ra lly do n ot c onst itu te a ct

ua l pe rs ec uti on; onl y

r ar el y , w he n th ey

are so im m ed ia te and m en ac ing a s to c au se sig nif ic an t su ff er ing or harm in the m se lve s, do threats per se qualify

as persec ution .” V

atu le v v. A shc rof

t , 354 F . 3d 1 207, 121 0 (1 0thCi r. 200 3) . “ T o qu al if y a s pe rs ec uti on, ape rs on’ s e xpe ri en ce m ust r ise above unp leasantness, hara ssm ent, and even basic suffering.” Nelson v. I NS , 232 F.3 d 2 58 , 26 3 (1 stCir . 20 00 ). In the instant case, w e conclude from the rec ord that sub stantial evidence supp orts the I J’ s f

ind ing that the pe tit ion er s f ai le d to de m onstrate a sy lum eligibil ity because they

did no t establish th at they suffere d past persecution o r had a w ell-founded fear of future persec ution on account of Salam anca’ s polit ical opin ion. In re gards to past persecution , S alam anca testified that FA RC m em bers co nti nuou sly

m ad e thr eate nin g ph one c al ls t o hi s f am ily ’ s ho m e, but

the se thr eats do n ot a ppe ar to have be en“ im

m ed ia te and m en ac ing , ” an d “ [t ] hr eats a lon e generally do not constitu te actual per secution.” See Vatulev , 354 F . 3d at 12 10 (p ers ua si ve au th or it y ). Sa lam an ca

a lso de ta ile d se ve ra l i nc ide nts , inc lud ing : ( 1) adr ive -b y sho oti ng at his parents’ house resultin g in a bullet woundto his leg; (2) a shoot ing di recte d towards him , his brother, and his friends as they drove through the country ; (3) an8

atta ck and b eatin g of

his br oth er ; and ( 4) adr ive -b y sho oti ng d ir ec te d to w ar ds him , his br oth er -i n- law , and a f ri en d, r es ult ing in a bul le t w ound to his br oth er -i nlaw ’ s le g. S al am an ca

ide nti fi ed

F A RC m em

be rs a s th e pe rp etrator s of tw o of the attacks: (1) the incident wher e he w as shot at his p arents’ house, because he saw the FA RC insignia on their clothing; and (2) the incident where he, his broth er, an d hi s f ri en ds w er e shot

a t a s th ey

dr ove , be ca

use the sho ote rs w or e “pla sti c boot s,” which he claim s are par t of ty pical FA RC uniform s. H owever , S alam anca fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n hi s po lit ic al opi nio n and the se atta ck s, a s he w as not

e nga gin g inpol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s w he n th e shoo tin gs o cc ur re d, and there is no indi cation that the FARC shot at him “ on account of” his po litical op in io n. See Sangha v. I

NS , 103 F. 3d 14 82, 1486-87 (9th Cir. 1997 ) (holding th at al ie n m ust e sta bli sh a c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n hi s po lit ic al opi nio n and the ha rm su ffer edby dire ctor c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, n otby infe ren ce). In relation to the other incidents, includi ng the attack allegedly perpetrate d against his brother as Sa lam anca and his friends hung political propag anda, Salam anca did not prov ide any evidence indicating th at the perpetrators wer e FA RC m em

bers. Moreover, the 2001 Country Report listed several groups that the F A RC pe rs ec ute d, inc lud ing pol iti ca l c an did at es w hom it did not sup port, butWe rec ently reje cted a n I J ’s findingthat petitioners could avoid pe rsec ution at the hands of 1 Co l o m b i a guerilla groups by reloc atingwithin Col ombia, beca use the 1999 a

nd 2000 Country Reports indicated that guerillas exercised influence throug hout Colombia. See Sepulve da , 401 F.3d at 1232 n.7. Howeve r, as in Sepulve da , we ne e d no t a dd re ss t he pe tit ion e rs ’ a

bil ity to r e loc ate wi thi n Colombi a in the instant ca se, bec ause the evidenc e does not compel the conc lusion that S alamanc a wa s p e rs e c ute d, or wo uld be pe rs e c ute d, on a c c ount o f h is p oli tic a l op ini on if he we re to r e tur

n to Colombi a. 9 did not ind ic at e that the F A RC pe rs ec ute d e le ct ionw orke rs , r eg ar dle ss o f the ir pa rty affil ia ti on , m erel y

be cau se itwas o pp os edto th e el ect or al pro ces s. Fi na lly , S al am an ca ’ s c la im that he w as pe rs ec ute d is und er m ine d by : ( 1) the fa ct that he r et

ur ne d to Co lom

bia tw o ti m es a ft er

he ini tia lly

le ft to av oid persecution, and during hi s travels to various coun tries around the world, he never soug ht h el p or

r ep orte d th e pe rs ec uti on; and ( 2) the f ac t tha t he ne ve r re porte d any of the threats or attac ks to th e authorities in Colom bia. A ccordingly , substantial ev ide nc e supp orts the I J’ s c onc lus ionthat the pe tit ion er s f ai le d to e sta

bli sh p as t pe rs ecu ti on . Furthe rm or e, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s c onc lus ionthat the pe ti ti on ers di d n ot est ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . A

“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” of pe rs ec uti on m ay

be e sta bli she d by

sho w ing ( 1) pa st pe rs ec uti on tha t c re at es apr es um pti on o f a w el l- fo unde d f ear an d ov er co m es any re butta l by

the I N S, ( 2) a

r ea sona ble pos sib ili ty

of pe rs ona l pe rs ec uti on tha t c annot be a voi de d by

r el oc at ing w ith in the sub j ec t c ountry , or

( 3) apa tte rnor

pr ac tic e in 110

the subject c ount ry

of persec uting m em

bers of a statutorily

defined group of which the a lie n is apart . 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (1 ), ( 2) . A s di sc uss ed above , the pe tit ion er s di d no t e sta

bli sh tha t S al am an ca

ha d be ensub

j ec te d to pa st persecution, and hence, no presum ption of a w ell-founded fear of future pe rs ec uti on aro se . S al am an ca a lso f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pa tte rnor

pr ac tic e by FA RC of per secuting m em bers of the Conservative Par ty . Beca use the petition ers failed to present specific, detailed fac ts com pelling the conclusio n that they expe ri en ce d pa st p er se cu tio n inCo lom bia , or that the y ha d aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of persecution if they

returned to Colom

bia, on acc ount of Salam anca’ s polit ical op in io n, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s den ia l o f as y lu m . In addition , if

“ an applicant is un able to m eet the ‘ we ll-founded fear’ standard f or a sy lum , he is ge ne ra lly

pr ec lud ed

f ro m qua lif y ing f or e ith er a sy lum or withholdi ng of deportation .” A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 92- 93 ( int er na l qu otatio ns an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). A cc or din gly , be ca use the pe tit ion er s f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on s uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the ir a sy lum c la im , the y

a lso co ul d n ot est ab li sh th atth ey were el ig ib le forwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Id . , 257 F. 3d at 12 92- 93, 130 3- 04. A cc or din gly , w e de ny the pe tit ion er s’ pe tit ionf or rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.