2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-4-2006 

# M arin v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2727

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ar in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1796. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1796A t t or neyG ener al A l ber t o G onzal es has been s ubs t i tut ed forfor m erA t t or neyG ener al 1 Jo h n A sh cro ft, the o ri g inal resp o n d en t i n this case , p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c). 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 04- 2727

__________ HE NR Y M AR I N, Pet i t i oner

v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, 1 A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, U . S. BO A RD O F I M M I G RA TI O N A PPEA LS; USC I S DI S TRI CT DI REC TOR, R espon den t s.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 95- 429- 651)

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber5, 2005

__________ B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R , V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J anuary4, 2006)W e have 

### juri sdic ti onto re view the Board of Im migrati onAp peal s’ order und er 2 

### 8 U .S.C. § 12 52 (a). 2 __________ OP I NI ON

__________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pet i t i onerH enryM ar i n appea l s fr om t he Fi nal O r derof R emoval of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on byt he i m m i gr at i on j udge deny i ng M a rin ’s A p p lica tio n f

o r A sy lu m a n d W ith h o ld in g o f R e m o v a l. W e c o n c lu d e th a t M a rin di d notdemonst r at e pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on ac co u n t of

h is po li ti ca l op inion s, an d w e w il l th ere fo re a ff irm the B o ard ’s ord er. 2 M ar i n w as a C ol om bi an nat i onal w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n M ar ch 2001 on a non- i m m i gr antvi s a thatauthor i zed hi m t o r emai n fora t empora r yper i od and depa r tno l at ert han A ugus t30, 2001. A s i s perhaps obvi ous , M ar i n over s t ay ed hi s vi s a. H e now re lies u p o n th re e th re a ten in g p h o n e c a lls m a d e to h im a t v a rio u s tim e s w h ile h e w a s in C ol om bi a as t he bas i s forhi s cl ai m of per s ecut i on and fe arof futur e per s ecut i on. I n D ece m ber1997 and J anuary1998, M ar i n r ece i ved phone c al l s r el at ed t o a contr actdi s put e i nvol vi ng t he t el ecomm uni cat i on companyforw hi ch he w or ked. T hr ee y ear s l at er , i n J anuary2001, M ar i n r ece i ved anothert hr eat eni ng phone ca l l i n w hi ch guerr i l l as demanded confi dent i al i nfor m at i on conce r ni ng hi s company ’ s cus t om er s . T he3

i m m i gr at i on j udge ques t i oned w hethers uch thr eat s w er e the true r eas on M ar i n l eft C ol um bi a, butconcl uded thateven i f theyw er e, t heyw er e notbas ed upon anyof the fi ve g ro u n d s f

o r a s y lu m e n u m e ra te d in th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liz a tio n A c t ( “ IN A ” ). See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ( 2000) ( defi ni ng a “r efuge e” a s a per s on w ho i s “unabl e or u n w il li n g ” to re turn to h is or h er c o u n tryo f o ri g in “b ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion ”). W e r evi ew t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s det erm i nat i on, w hi ch i s t he fi nal agenc y deci s i on her e, fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , t r eat i ng t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s fi ndi ngs as “conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n tra ry .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); s ee al s o B or ges v. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 398, 404 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have l i t t l e di ffi cul t yi n deny i ng t he pet i t i on forr evi ew beca us e, as det erm i ned byt he i m m i gr at i on j udge, M ar i n offe r s no bas i s fora fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on, norof futur e per s ecut i on, l etal one anyfi ndi ng t hats uch adve r s i tyw as orw oul d be vi s i t ed upon hi m forone of the fi ve enumer at ed gr ounds . T he i m m i gr at i on j udge deni ed the appl i cat i on foras y l um , and s i m i l ar l ydeni ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on under t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. W e conc l ude thatt hi s det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n vi ew of the l ack of evi dence of anyper s ecut i on. M ari n als o all eges t hat the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s vi olat ed h i s due p rocess4

ri g h ts an d ab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yaf firm ing w ith o u t op inion the im m igrati o n jud g e’s d e te rm in a tio n . W e f

in d th a t th e s e a rg u m e n ts la c k m e ri t, s ee D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 2 2 8 , 2 3 9 - 4 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d wi l l a c c o r d i n g l yDE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

______________________