FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Tom Stag g , United States District J udg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1290 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y N o. A 97- 204- 149 GLORIA ARCIBELLY LOPEZ, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

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

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 6, 200 7) Before CA RNE S and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and ST AG G , D istrict Judg e. * CAR NE S, Circuit Judge:The I J ’s orde r states that L opez was attac ked by two women, but L opez’s own 1 testimony , which we must acce pt as true, indicates that she wa s attacke d by two women and a man. 2 Gloria A rcibelly

Lopez, a Colom

bian native, j oined th e Colom bian Liberal Party in 1995 a s ac om

m uni ty c oor din at or , pr ovi din g hu m an itari ana ssi stanc e to re sid en ts o f poor

c om m uni tie s and c ondu ct ing se m inars on the pr inc ipl es of the Lib eral Mo ve m en t. InJanuary 199 8 sh e be gan r ec ei vin g th re at en ing pho ne c al ls fro m th e Rev ol ut io na ry

Arm edFo rces of C ol om bi a, th e FARC . The c allers in st ru ct edhe r to ab an do n h er ac ti vi ti es wit h t he Lib eral Part y . L ope z did not rep or t t he cal ls to th e p ol ic e. InApr il 1999 , L ope z re tur ne d to Co lom

bia a ft er spe ndi ng s ix m onths i n th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th he r m ot he r. Sh e re sum ed he r L ibe ra l P ar

ty a ct ivi tie s, and i n S e p t e mb e r

o f th a tye a r , a f

t e r l e a v i n g ac o mm

u n i t y e v e n t , s h e wa s ap p r o a c h e db y a m anand a

w om anw ho i de nti fi ed

the m se lve s a s F A RC m em be rs , ins ult ed

he r, and tol d he r that sh e shou ld r es ignf ro m the L ibe ra l P ar

ty and n ot c om e ba ck

to the area . Lop ez co nt in ue d h er wo rk . O n N ove m be r 27, 199 9, she w as c onf ro nte d by a m an and two w om en. T hey told her: “ W e ar e fr om

FA RC re volu tionary 1 m ilitias and we alre ady

warned y ou that y ou sho uld no t return to these places. ” T he n th ey

be gan hi tti ng h er

about the f ac e an d arm s, e ve ntu al ly

thr ow ing he r to th e g ro un d. Nothing was stolen from Lopez, but as a result of the attack she w as3

fo rc ed to se ek m ed ic al a tte nti on. T h e me d i c a l r e p o rtf o u n d : “[ c ]o n c l u s i v e tr au ma on [ he r] f ac e, tho ra x and arm s, ” la ce ratio ns o n he r fo re ar m and e lbo w , and at l ea st so m e b ru is in g. A ga in, L ope z did not f ile apol ic e re port. Af ter that attac k, L opez withdrewfrom her political activities for som e tim e. T he n inJun e 2001 , L ope z re sum ed he r hum an itari anw ork. Even though s he tried to be m ore discrete, local residents warned her that m em bers of the FA RC w ere asking abo ut her. The F ARC m ade threatening phon e calls both to Lopez’ s place of work and to a rental property she owned, which re sulted in Lopez once m ore st op pi ng he r co m

m un it y in vo lv em en t fo r a wh il e. Again, she m ade no police re port.InA ugus t 20 02 L ope z an d he r m oth er be gan c ondu ct ing tr ai nin g w orksho ps, w hic h w er e supp orte d by the L ibe ra l P ar

ty , to te ac h lo ca l w om enhow to m an ag e th ei r ho us eh ol d fi na nc es . She w as warned by her students on Oc tober 12, 2002 th at she needed to be care ful, and on Oc tober 19, 2002, at the end of a session , thre e ar

m ed m en burst into the classroom and told Lopez: “ W e ar e m em be rs of F A RC ’ s ur

ban m ili tia [; ] w e se nt y ou a m es sa ge la st w ee k w ithone of our stu de nts . W e don’ t w an t any shi t w orksho ps i n our te rr ito ry be ca use w ha t y ou are d oi ng is trying to bra in was h o urpe op le an d b uy vo te s fo r th os e SOB po li ti ci an s.” Lopez le ft Colom bia and arrived in the United State s on Novem ber4

8, 2 00 2. O n Ju ly 15, 200 3, the D ep ar

tm en t of H om el an d S ec ur ity

iss ue d L ope z, w ho ha d o ve rs ta y edhe r vi sa , a no ti ce t o app ear. At a hearing in October 2003 Lopez ap pe ar ed and c onc ed ed

he r re m ova

bil ity . S he sou ght

a sy lum , w ith hol din g of rem ov al , and rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re. Although the IJ fa iled to m ake an explicit credibility finding, she stated: “ we are to take everything that she has toldthe Court today at fa ce value. ” Ev en th o u g h s h e a cc ep t ed Lo p ez ’s te sti m ony a s tr ue , the I J f

ound that sh e ha d f

ai le d to m ee t he r bur de n of pr oof in es ta bli shi ng r ef

uge e status and d en ie d a ll thr ee of he r re que sts . More specifica lly , the I J determ ined that Lopez’ s activities wer e co m m un it y -b as edan d n ot po li ti cal in na tu re. She also held that the harm alleged by L ope z w as ins uf

fi ci en t, be ca

use the pho ne c al ls d id n ot e sta bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on and L ope z ha d f ai le d to sho wthat the phy sic al a tta ck w as m or e than a ran do m actof v io le nc e. The I J said that Lopez’ s failure to re port the Novem ber 1999 attack to the police in Colom bia hurt her case, because “ [i] n the absence of a police investi gation, the Court cannot m ake a deter m ination whether

this was polit ically

m otivated or whether the re spon dent was a victim of a c rim e. ” N one the le ss, the I J a ll but m ad e that de te rm inatio n, statin g inthe ne xt s en te nc e:

“ It appears the r espond ent was a victim of a c rim e because in this case she does5

not even contact the autho rities in order to obtain th eir protection first before traveling outs ide of her hom e country to obtain the protection of the United States. ” Lopez tim ely

appealed the IJ’ s decision to the BIA , c hallengin g the denial of he r as y lu m

an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al cla im s b ut ab an do ni ng he r CAT cl ai m . The B IAadopted and affirm ed the IJ’ s decision, notin g that althou gh the IJ failed to m ak e an ex pr es s cr ed ib il it y fin di ng , cred ib il it y

was n ot at i ss ue . T he BI A a lso state d: “ w e ag re e w iththe I m m igr at ionJud ge that be ca use the r es pond en t di d no t seek protection from

lawenforce m ent authorities in Colom bia after her encounters w iththe [ FA RC ] . . . she f ai le d to de m onstrate that the Co lom bian go ve rn m en t i s unable or unwilling to protect her. ” T his appe al f oll ow ed . Lopez nowcontends th at the BIAerr ed (1) in finding th at she did not suffer pa st p er se cu tio n su ff

ic ie nt t o m er it as y lum

and ( 2) in de ny ing he r pe tit ionf or relief on the grou nd that sh e had failed to seek help fr om the Colom

bian au th or it ie s, wh ic h s he cla im s wo ul d h av e b een fut il e. I. Whe n th e BI A iss ue s ade ci sio n, w e re vie wonl y that de ci sio n, e xc ep t t o th e ex te nt the BI A e xpr es sly

a dopt s th e IJ ’ s de ci sio n. A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ In so far as th e [BI A] ad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, we6

w ill r ev ie wthe I J’ s de ci sio n a s w el l. ” I d. H er e, be ca use the BI A a dopt ed

and af fi rm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n, a ddi ng s om e of it s own c om

m en ts, w e re vie wboth decisions . Le gal determ ination s are r eviewe d de novo . D- Muhum ed v. U nited States A tt’ y

Ge n., 388 F.3d 814, 817 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). H owever , any fac tual de te rm inatio ns are r ev ie w ed und er the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st, and w e “ m ust af fi rm the . . . de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 83–8 4 (quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). T ha t m eans a f ind ing of f ac t w ill be r ev er se d “ onl y w he n th e re co rd

c om pe ls a r ev er sa l; the m er e fa ct

that the r ec or d m ay

sup port a co ntr ar y c onc lus ionis not

e noug h to j ust if

y ar ev er sa l. . . . ” A de fe m i v. A shc ro ft , 386 F.3d 102 2, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (e n banc). II. G ive n th at

both th e IJand B IAa cc ep te d L ope z’ s te sti m ony a s tr ue , w e m ust do s o a s w el l. O nc e that i s do ne the r ec or d c om pe ls the c onc lus ionthat the N o v e mb e r

1 9 9 9 a t t a c ko n h e r

w a s p o l i t i c a l l y mo t i v a t e di n s t e a do f ar a n d o m, cri m in al act . Lop ez h adjus t at te nd eda co m m un it y ev en t ea rli er t ha t ev en in g. The attackers identified them selves as m em bers of the FA RC, and they told Lopez that she had been “ alrea dy warned.” T ha t w as an ob vio us r ef er en ce to the thr eate nin g ph one c al ls s he ha d r ec ei ve d or de ri ng h er to sto p he r ac tiv iti es w ith7

the L ibe ra l P ar

ty , and t o th e m anand w om anf ro m the F A RC w ho, tw o m onths be fo re the a tta ck , ha d c onf ro nte d he r an d to ld h er

to re sig n f

ro m the L ibe ra l P ar

ty an d n ot co m e b ackto th e are a. T he re is al so the f ac t tha t duri ng the a tta ck

nothin g wa s stolen from

her, as it probably

would have been during a m uggi ng or other type o f ro bb ery. T he I J sh oul d have f ound that the N ove m

be r 1999 a tta ck

on Lop ez was po li ti cal ly m ot iv at ed . Be ca use the I J di d no t do so, she did not c onsi de r the a tta ck

in the pa st persecution analy sis. Instead, the IJ only considered the phon e calls and verbal thr eats a s po lit ic al ly

m oti va te d, and c onc lud ed that those w er e ins uf

fi ci en t t o constitu te persecution. T hat is why the IJ w as able to rely

on Sepulveda v. United St at es A tto rn ey

G en er al , 401 F . 3d 1 226 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( pe r curi am), our decision ho lding that verbal threats and threatening phon e calls alone ar e in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w per se cu ti on . See i d. at 12 31 . W e de cl ine to de ci de in the f ir st ins tanc e w he the r al l of

the thr eats L ope z re ce ive d and the phy sic al a tta ck in Novem ber 1999, which ar e to be considered together, am ount to persecution. See Ru iz v. G onz al es , 479 F . 3d 7 62, 766 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ( not ing that the que sti on i s w he the r the pol iti ca lly

m oti va te d c ondu ct

c onsi de re d c um

ulativ el y a m ount s to past persecution).8

A r em an d is pr ef

er ab le so tha t the I J c ande ci de thi s is sue in the f ir st instance. I n Gonzalez v. T hom as, 547 U. S. 183, 126 S. Ct. 1613 (2006) (per curiam ), the Suprem e Court sum m arily rever sed the Ninth Circuit in an im m igration case for f

ailing to apply

the “ ordinary

‘ rem and’ rule, ” under w hich

“ [a ] c ourt of

appe al s is not

ge ne ra lly e m pow er ed to co nduc t a

de nov o in qui ry

int o the m atter being review ed and to reach its own conclusions . . . .” Id. at —, 126 S. Ct . a t 16 14–1 5. I nst ea d, the Co urt he ld tha t the I J ( w ithr igh t of r ev ie wto the BI A ) m ust f ir st “ de te rm in[ e] the f

ac ts and d ec id[ e] w he the r the f ac ts a s f ound f al l wit hi n a st atut ory

ter m .” Id . at 1 61 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . H er e, that m eans w e shou ld a llo wthe I J to de te rm ine , a m ong oth er f ac ts, the ex te nt and s ev er ity

of the N ove m

be r 1999 be at ing , and the n a ppl y to al l of the fa ct s th e lawr el at ing to pe rs ec uti on. A cc or d, I N S v. V en tur a, 537 U . S. 12, 16, 123 S. Ct . 353 , 355 ( 2002 ) (p er c ur iam ) (s um

m ar ily r ev er sin g th e N inth C ir cu it fo r fa ili ng t o a

ppl y the “ or din ar

y r em an d r ule , ” an d ho ldi ng tha t “ [g ] en er al ly speaking , a

court of appeals should rem and a case to an a gency for decision of a m atter that statutes place prim arily in agency

hands”); Antipova v. United State s A tt’ y G en . , 392 F . 3d 1 259, 126 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( not ing that w he re the re ha s no t be enapr ope r de te rm inatio n a s to pol iti ca l pe rs ec uti on, w e re m an d f or the I J to m ak e one in the f

ir st i nst an ce ). I f w e w er e to r ush ah ea d and d ec ide the9

pe rs ec uti on i ssu e our se lve s, w e m igh t be vie w ed a s c om m itt ing the sam e sinof overeagerness that got the Ninth Circuit summ arily rever sed in Ventura and then ag ai n i n Go nz al ez. III . A r em an d is a lso in or de r fo r an oth er r ea son. “ A s am atte r of

im m igr at ion pol ic y , agov er

nm en t m ay

e xpe ct that an a sy lum

se ek er be una ble to obt ai n protection anywher e in his own country before he seeks the protection of anoth er country .” Mazariegos v. U nited States Att’ y Ge n., 241 F.3d 1320 , 1327 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) . As ar e s u l t , i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y h e r b u r d e n o f

e s t ab l i s h i n g a s yl u m el i g i b i l i t y, Lopez m ust sh ow not onlypast persecution or a we ll-founded fear of f uture persecution, but also that sh e is unable to avail herself of the protection of her hom e co untry . I d. The B IAruled that because L opez did no t “ seek protection from law en fo rc em en t auth or iti es in Co lom bia a ft er he r en co unt er s w iththe [ FA RC ] . . . she fa ile d to de m onstrate that the Co lom bian go ve rn m en t i s un ab le or unw ill ing to protect her. ” A lth oughit is not e nti re ly c le ar , the r

uli ng a ppe ar s to be that the failure to seek protection without m ore is enough to defeat a claim for asy lum . If so, that de ci sio n is not

f ull y c onsi ste nt w ithS -A -, 22 I . & N . D ec . 132 8, 133 5 (B IA200 0) . A lth oughthe f ai lur e to r ep ort pe rs ec uti on t o lo ca l go ve rn m en t10

au tho ri tie s ge ne ra lly

is fata l t o an a sy lum

c la im , Ma zari eg os, 241 F . 3d at 13 27, the BI A in S- A - he ld tha t i t w oul d be e xc use d w he re the pe tit ion er c onvi nc ing ly dem onstrates that tho se authorities would have been unabl e or unwilling to protect he r, an d fo r th atreas on sh e co ul d n ot rel y on th em . 22 I. & N. Dec. at 1 33 5. Lopez c ontend s that throug h her testim ony and the country

reports she has convin cingly

m ade the showing required by S-A -, and that is a contentio n which ne it he r th e IJ no r th e BIA ad dr es se d. Itsh ou ldbe ad dr es se d o n re m an d. Ac cordingly , w e GRANT the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wand REMAND to the BIA fo r furthe r co nsi de ratio n c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.