FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUGUST 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 16170 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 79- 101- 924 & A 79- 101- 925 L U I S A N T O N I O M E N D O Z A - A V E L L A , Z U L M A N A N D R E A M E N D O Z A - T O R R E S , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L ui s M endo za -A vel l a ( “ L ui s” ) and Z ul m an M endo za -T orre s ( “ Z ul m an”) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ the M e ndoz a s ” ) pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) ’ s orderdenyi ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen i t s pre vi ou s order , w hi ch adop t ed and affi rm ed the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) f i nal re m ov al order. T hey a r g u e th a t th e B I A ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e n e w e v id e n c e d id n o t a lte rth e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n th a t th e I Jm a d e in d e n y in g th e ir appl i ca t i on s f

or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . T hey c on t end thatthe new evi dence di r e c t l y a ddr e s s e s the i rc r e di bi l i ty a nd s houl d notha ve be e n di s m i s s e d w i thout a n a l y s i s o rd i s c u s s i o n ab o u tth e e v i d e n c e ’ s m a t e r i a l i ty . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D L ui s and hi s daugh t er , Z ul m an, bo th n at i ves of C ol om bi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t a t e s w i thoutva l i d e ntry doc um e nt s i n M a r c h 2001. A c c or di ngl y , the D e pa rtm e nt of H om el and S ec uri ty s erved the M endo za s w i th N ot i ce s t o A pp ear ( N T A s) , c h a r g in g th e m w ith in a d m is s ib ilityu n d e rI N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) , 8 U .S .C . § 11 82 (a )( 7)(A )( i )( I) . A ta heari ng before the IJ , the pet i t i on er s a dm i tt ed the fa ctual al l egat i on s c on t ai ned i n the N T A s and conceded remo vabi l i ty. T he M endo za s f i l e d t i m e l y appl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , c l a i m i ng pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e of

the i rP e nt e c os t a l - C hr i s t i a n r e l i gi on. T hey a l so soug htre l i ef unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) . I n the i rappl i c a t i ons , the3

M e ndoz a s a l l e ge d tha ttw o m e m be r s of the R e vol ut i ona ryA rm e d F or c e s of C o lo m b ia( “F A R C ” ) h a d ap p r o a c h e d a n d th r e a te n e d th e m , s ta tin g th a t if th e yd id nots t op pr e a c hi ng r e l i gi on a nd s pe a ki ng a ga i ns tthe F A R C , the yw oul d be as sa ss i nat ed. A fe w m on ths l at er , the M endo za s a l l eged, the sa m e tw o m en had ap p r o a c h e d th e m a n d h a d th r e a te n e d th e m w ith d e a th . A tthe re m ov al hear i ng before the IJ , L ui s t es t i fi ed thathe had b ee n o rdai ned as a pre ac her of the go spel for the U ni t ed P ent ec ost al C hu rc h i n 1 96 4. H e t es t i fi ed tha tthe F A R C ha d f

i r s tappr oa c he d hi m a nd hi s daught e ri n D e c e m be rof 2000, w he n tw o m e m be r s thr e a t e ne d the m w i th de a th i f the yc ont i nue d t o pr e a c h the go spel . A ft erthi s i ni t i al cont ac t , the F A R C had con t i nu ed t o h ar as s the M endo za s by va nda l i z i ng the i rc hur c h, br e a ki ng i nt o hous e s , f l a tt e ni ng t i r e s , m a ki ng te le p h o n e c a lls , b e a tin g c h ild r e n , a n d p u s h in g w o m e n . I n F e b ru a ry2 0 0 1 , L u is t e s t i f i e d, the s a m e tw o F A R C m e m be r s ha d appr oa c he d hi m , hi s daught e rZ ul m a n, an d th re e r elativ es o f h is w ife in a p ar k , an d , p u tt in g g u n s to h is an d h is d au g h ter’s st om ac hs, had t ol d them thati tw ou l d b e the l as tw arni ng because thei r f am i l y w as o n th e lis t to b e a s s a s s in a te d . H e a l so t es t i fi ed that : (1) hi s other daugh t er , S andra, w ho al so w as ac t i ve i n the church, w as pers ec ut ed by the F A R C , and h ad re ce i ved a s y l um i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; ( 2) hi s w i f e s t i l l l i ve d i n C ol om bi a , but , w he n the threa t s a gai nstS andra began i n Jul y of 199 9, she qui tgo i ng t o chu rc h and began m o v in g to d if

f e r e n t p a rts o f

th e c o u n try ; a n d ( 3 ) h e a n d Z u lm a n , h a d d e c id e d to4

s e e ka s y lu m in th e U n ite d S ta te s w h e n th e yle a rn e d , e n r o u te to ac o n f e r e n c e in C ost a R i ca , thatthere w ou l d b e ast op ov eri n M i am i . Z ul m an corroborat ed her f a th e r ’s a c c o u n ts o f

th e e n c o u n te r s w ith th e F A R C m e m b e r s . T h e IJ d en i ed th e M en d o zas’ ap p l i cat i o n s. A ft erno t i ng thatthe M endo za s had fai l ed t o sub m i tevi dence re gardi ng S andra’ s grantof as yl um , the IJfoun d that thei r t es t i m on y w as no tcr edi bl e, base d o n a nu m ber of i ncon si st enci es betw ee n thei r t es t i m on i es and b etw ee n thei r app l i ca t i on s and t es t i m on y. T he M endo za s ap p e a le d to th e B I A , w h ic h a d o p te d a n d a f f irm e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n , f in d in g th a t, w hi l e s om e of

the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s not e d bythe I Jw e r e i m m a t e r i a l , the f a i l ur e of the M endo za s t o m ent i on i n thei r a sy l um appl i ca t i on s thatthey w er e threa t ened at g u n p o i n tw as a m at eri al i n co n si st en cy su ffi ci en tt o su p p o rtth e IJ’ s ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on . T he B IA al so foun d that , even i f the M endo za s had been foun d cre di bl e, they had fai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe threa t s of harm thatthey had r e c e iv e d a m o u n te d to p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . I n r e je c tin g th e irc la im th a t th e yw o u ld fa ce pers ec ut i on up on re turn t o C ol om bi a, the B IA no t ed thatL ui s’ s w i fe had c o n tin u e d to liv e in C o lo m b ia , a n d th a t th e f e a ro f g e n e r a l v io le n c e in C o lo m b iais n o t ap r o p e rb a s is f

o rag r a n t o f

a s y lu m . T he M e ndoz a s di d notf i l e ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, i ns t e a d f i l i ng am ot i on t o r e ope n ba s e d on pr e vi ous l yuna va i l abl e e vi de nc e . T he m o tio n in c lu d e d th r e e s w o rn a f f id a v its . I n th e f

ir s t a f f id a v it, M ig u e l A n to n io5

J i m e ne z C ontr e r a s , w ho i s L ui s ’ s “ pol i t i c a l unc l e , ” s t a t e d tha t : ( 1) i n J a nua ry2006, he s a w as e r i e s of

pa m phl e t s pr i nt e d bythe F A R C be a r i ng api c tur e of L ui s , a m ong others , and the capt i on “ tho se agai nstou r i deas ar e e l i m i nat ed; ” and (2) i n M ar ch o f 2 0 0 6 , tw o m e n d r e s s e d in m ilita ryu n if o rm s ap p r o a c h e d h is c a ro u ts id e o f h is hous e , a s ke d i f

he ha d a ny i nf

orm a t i on aboutL ui s , a nd, w he n he a ns w e r e d no, threa t ened hi m w i th a gu n and threa t ened t o k i l l hi m i f he di d n othave an answ er the ne xtt i m e tha tthe y a s ke d. A R a t14. I n the s e c ond a f f i da vi t , G i l m aT orr e s de Ji m enez , a m em ber of the M endo za s’ church, st at ed that : (1) the M endo za s w er e forc ed t o l ea ve the coun trydu e t o con st antthrea t s by the F A R C ; (2) i n January 20 06 , she w as throw n t o the grou nd by an un kn ow n m an, w ho st at ed they w er e lo o k in g f o r“th e Z u lm a[ s ic ] a n d th e s n itc h o f h e rd a d ,” a n d th a t J im e n e z w a s to te ll the M e ndoz a s tha tthe pe rpe tr a t or s w e r e e xpe c t i ng “ t o gi ve the m l e a d; ” a nd ( 3) the M endo za s’ l i ves s t i l l w er e i n d anger because they w er e c on si dere d tra i t ors. Id. at 2 0 . In th e fi n al affi d av i t , Y u l i eth A l ex an d ra T o rres L ara, a fri en d o f th e M en d o zas, s ta te d th a t: ( 1 ) s h e h a d w itn e s s e d th e m a n yth r e a ts a g a in s t th e M e n d o z a s ; ( 2 ) in D ecem b er 2 0 0 5 , th ree m en h ad co m e t o h er h o u se, i n q u i red as t o th e M en d o zas’ w he r e about s , a nd ha d thr e a t e ne d he r ; a nd ( 3) i n F e brua ry2006 s he ha d r e c e i ve d a phone c a l l by am e m be rof the F A R C , w ho s t a t e d tha tthe F A R C w oul d ki l l the M e ndoz a s . C i t i ng ac a s e f r om the N i nth C i r c ui t , M e j i av. A s hc r of

t , 298 F 3d. 8736

( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , th e M e n d o z a s a r g u e d th a t th e s ta te m e n ts e s tab lis h e d p r im af a c ie el i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef , re qu i ri ng the B IA t o add re ss the new evi dence. T he B I A de ni e d the M e ndoz a s ’ m ot i on t o r e ope n, f i ndi ng tha tthe yha d not r a i s e d a ny e rr ori n the B I A ’ s pr e vi ous de c i s i on, a nd tha tthe i r“ unde r l y i ng r e l i gi ous pers ec ut i on cl ai m ha[d] no tchanged i n any m at er i al re spec t . ” I d. at2. T he B IA n o te d th a t th is w a s n o t ac a s e w h e r e ap r io r , m e r itle s s c la im a n d a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility fi nd i ng w er e overcom e by s ub se qu entevent s, concl ud i ng that“ the proffer ed a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e w o u ld n o t m e a n in g f u llya f f e c t th e f in d in g s r e g a r d in g th e ir f a i l ur e t o de m ons tr a t e e l i gi bi l i ty ” f orr e l i e f . I d. n. 1. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, th e M e n d o z a s a r g u e th a t th e B I A ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in c onc l udi ng tha tthe ne w e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d w i th the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n di d not a lte rth e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n . T h e ya r g u e th a t th e a f f id a v its d ir e c tly a d d r e s s th e irc r e d ib ilitya n d s h o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is m is s e d w ith o u t a n ya n a ly s is ordi s c us s i on aboutthe e vi de nc e ’ s m a t e r i a l i ty . T he M e ndoz a s c i t e M e j i af orthe p r o p o s itio n th a t th e B I A w a s r e q u ir e d “to e n g a g e in [ ] s u b s ta n tia l a n a ly s is ” o f th e ir c la im . A p p e lla n t B r . a t 1 5 ( c itin g 2 9 8 F 3 d . 8 7 3 ) . W e r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . S e e A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1302 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( “ [ W ] e e m pl oy ave ry de f e r e nt i a l abus e of

di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d i n r e vi e w i ng the7

B I A ’ s de c i s i on on am ot i on t o r e ope n. ” ) . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s a na l ogi z e d the bu rden on an appl i cantse eki ng t o reopen i m m i grat i on proceedi ng s t o thati m po se d on a c ri m i nal defe nd antse eki ng a new tri al “ on the basi s of new l y di sc ov er ed ev i d en ce, as t o w h i ch co u rt s h av e u n i fo rm l y h el d th atth e m o v i n g p arty b ears a he a vy bur de n. ” I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S . 94, 110, 108 S . C t . 904, 914 ( 1988) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he i m pl i c a t i on of thi s a na l ogy . . . a nd the f a c ttha tthe r e gul a t i ons ‘ pl a i nl y di s f a vor ’ m ot i ons t o r e ope n a l l s upportthe B I A ’ s i m pos i t i on of a‘ he a vy bur de n. ’ ” A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1302 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e ha ve adop t ed the re qu i re m entthata m ov antm ust“ pres ent [ ] evi dence of s uch a nature th a t th e [ B I A ] is s a tis f

ie d th a t if

p r o c e e d in g s b e f

o r e th e [ I J ] w e r e r e o p e n e d , w ith a ll a tt e nda ntde l a y s , the ne w e vi de nc e of f e r e d w oul d l i ke l yc ha nge the r e s ul ti n the c a s e . ” A l i v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 443 F . 3d 804, 813 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i ons a nd in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ A tam i ni m um , the r e a r e a tl e a s tthr e e i nde pe nde ntgr ounds upon w hi c h the B I A m a y de ny am ot i on t o r e ope n: 1) f a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e ; 2) fa i l ure t o i ntrodu ce evi dence thatw as m at er i al and p re vi ou sl y unavai l abl e; and 3 ) a de t e rm i na t i on tha tde s pi t e the a l i e n’ s s t a tut orye l i gi bi l i tyf orr e l i e f , he ors he i s not e nt i t l e d t o af

a vor abl e e xe r c i s e of

di s c r e t i on. ” A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1302 ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . U n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , “[ a ] m o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s s h a ll n o t b e g r a n te d u n le s s it ap p e a r s to th e B o a r d th a t e v id e n c e s o u g h t to b e o f f e r e d is8

m at er i al and w as no tavai l abl e and coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed at th e f o rm e rh e a r in g .” I n e x p la in in g 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , w e h a v e s ta te d th a t: [ t]h e p r o v is io n is f

r a m e d n e g a tiv e ly , b yd ir e c tin g th e B o a r d n o t to r e o p e n u n le s s c e rta in s h o w in g s a r e m a d e . I t d o e s n o t a f f irm a tiv e ly re qu i re the B oard t o reopen the proceedi ng s und erany part i cul ar c ondi t i on. T hus , the r e gul a t i ons m a ybe c ons true d t o pr ovi de the B oard w i th d i sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng un der w hatci rc um st ance s pr oc e e di ngs s houl d be r e ope ne d. A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 ( a lte r a tio n s , c ita tio n s , a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . M oreover, as the F i fth C i rc ui thas per suas i vel y hel d, i n any deci si on the B IA “ has n o d u tyto w r ite a n e x e g e s is o n e v e ryc o n te n tio n . W h a t is r e q u ir e d is m e r e lyth a t it consi der the i ss ues r ai se d, and ann ou nce i t s dec i si on i n t erm s s uffi ci entt o enabl e a re vi ew i ng courtt o p er ce i ve thati thas heard and tho ug htand n otm er el y r ea ct ed. ” O suchuk w u v . IN S , 74 4 F . 2d 11 36 , 11 42 -114 3 (5th C i r. 19 84 ). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the p art i es, w e can n o tsay th atth e B IA ab u sed i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g th e M en d o zas’ m o t i o n t o reo p en . T h e M en d o zas d i d n o tch al l en g e th e B IA ’ s fi n d i n g s o f ad v erse c r e di bi l i ty a nd i ne l i gi bi l i ty f orr e m ova l r e l i e f

, i ns t e a d f

i l i ng am ot i on t o r e ope n on the basi s of pre vi ou sl y unavai l abl e e vi dence. W hi l e s om e of the evi dence m ay ha ve be e n pr e vi ous l y una va i l abl e –be c aus e i tdoc um e nt e d a l l e ge d thr e a t s oc c urr i ng af t erthe re m ov al proceedi ng s–the B IA prop er l y f ou nd thati tw as no tevi dence s u f f ic ie n t to a lte rm a te r ia llyth e B I A ’s in itia l d e te rm in a tio n o f e lig ib ility .9

A c c o r d in g to th e irte s tim o n y , th e M e n d o z a s a lr e a d yh a d b e e n th r e a te n e d d ir e c tly a n d in d ir e c tlym u ltip le tim e s , o n e o f w h ic h w a s a t g u n p o in t. T h e in c id e n ts desc ri bed i n the af

fi davi t s r epre se nta c on t i nu at i on of, and d o n otdi ff er s ubs t a nt i a l l y f

r om , the e a r l i e rthr e a t s , w hi c h the B I A de t e rm i ne d di d notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on. T he r e f

or e , the M e ndoz a s ha ve nots a t i s f i e d the i rhe a vy bur de n i n de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe a f f i da vi t s l i ke l yw oul d c ha nge the out c om e of the i rc a s e , s e e A l i , 443 F . 3d a t813, i n pa rtbe c aus e the e vi de nc e doe s not s uf f i c i e nt l y a ddr e s s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on, a s a f f i rm e d bythe B I A . M or e ove r , a nd c ontr a ry t o the M e ndoz a s ’ a s s e rt i on, the B I A c ons i de r e d the s ubs e que nt l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e a nd e xpl i c i t l yf ound tha ti tdi d notc ha nge the M e ndoz a s ’ r e l i gi ous pe r s e c ut i on c l a i m i n a nym a t e r i a l r e s pe c t . A c c or di ngl y , the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the M e ndoz a s ’ m ot i on t o r e ope n. I I I . CONCL US I ON B e c aus e the ne w e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d di d notm a t e r i a l l ydi f f e rf r om p r e v io u s lys u b m itte d e v id e n c e a n d d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th e M e n d o z a s ’ e lig ib ility f o rr e lie f , th e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e o p e n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n y th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . DE NI E D.