Opinion ID: 55914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Martinez-Quintero’s Eligibility For Asylum

Text: Section 208 of the INA provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” INA § 208(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). The Attorney General, in his discretion, may grant asylum to an alien if he “determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) [of the INA].” INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is defined in section 101 as one who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 8 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). To prove refugee status, “the alien must establish a ‘well-founded fear’ that his or her [statutorily listed ground] will cause harm or suffering that rises to the level of ‘persecution.’” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation omitted). Such a well-founded fear of persecution may be established by showing either: (1) past persecution; or (2) a ‘well-founded fear’ of future persecution. Sepulveda, 402 F.3d at 1230-31 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a),(b)). Although the INA does not define “persecution,” we have indicated that “persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Id. at 1231 (quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). “Not all exceptional treatment is persecution.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11th Cir. 2000). For example, we have made clear that threatening phone calls constitute mere harassment and intimidation, and that they fail to rise to the level of persecution. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (stating that 9 “menacing telephone calls and threats . . . do not rise to the level of past persecution that would compel reversal of the IJ’s decision”) (citation omitted). In this case, following the police investigation of the murder of Clavijo’s sisters, Martinez-Quintero and Clavijo received “many threatening calls at [their] residence” from people identifying themselves as FARC operatives. AR at 144; see also id. at 95 (stating that FARC operatives “began to call [] at home”). Martinez-Quintero’s application and testimony do not mention any physical encounters with FARC guerillas; rather, her asylum application is limited to the threatening phone calls that she received prior to fleeing Colombia. Such evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to rise to the level of “persecution” as our case law has construed that term. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231; see also Bello Clavijo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 07-10042 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished) (finding that the threatening phone calls complained of by MartinezQuintero’s companion, Clavijo, failed to rise to the level of past persecution under our case law). Because Martinez-Quintero failed to demonstrate that she suffered “persecution” under the INA, INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), we discern no error in the decision to deny Martinez-Quintero’s petition for asylum. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the decision to deny MartinezQuintero’s petition because she failed to establish a nexus between her claimed persecution and a statutorily protected ground. As the IJ noted, in order to be 10 eligible for asylum, the asylum applicant must --- in addition to demonstrating persecution --- establish that such persecution is “on account of” one of the enumerated statutory grounds. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(B)(i) (“To establish that the applicant is a refugee . . . the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”); Mazariegos, 241 F.3d at 1323 (stating that the asylum applicant must provide evidence that “he was mistreated because of his political opinion, or one of the other grounds, rather than for some other reason.”) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the IJ concluded that Martinez-Quintero had not established a nexus between her claimed persecution (past or future) and any of the five grounds necessary to establish asylum eligibility. Specifically, the IJ found “no evidence that the FARC guerilla members were interested in the respondent . . . because of [her common-law husband’s] political opinion or membership in a particular social group or any of the other grounds specified for a grant of asylum.” AR at 60. On appeal, Martinez-Quintero argues that this conclusion was in error. She contends that the record compels the opposite conclusion --- namely, that she suffered persecution on account of both her political opinion and her membership in a social group. We address each of these contentions in turn. 11
Persecution on account of political opinion requires that the claimed persecution be based upon the political opinion of the victim, not that of the persecutor. See Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437-38 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The applicant must establish that his political opinion “will cause harm or suffering that rises to the level of ‘persecution.’” D- Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818 (citation omitted). In contrast, “[e]vidence that either is consistent with acts of private violence or the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with guerillas, or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity, does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also Sanchez, 392 F.3d at 438 (upholding denial of asylum because there was no “nexus between [the petitioner]’s political opinion and the FARC’s alleged persecution,” but, rather, “the evidence was consistent with a finding that the FARC harassed [the petitioner] due to her refusal to cooperate with them”). Here, the evidence suggests that the FARC threats against MartinezQuintero and Clavijo were motivated by a desire to thwart the police investigation into the murders of Clavijo’s sisters, rather any actual or imputed political opinion. The record demonstrates that FARC’s threats against Martinez-Quintero were 12 “consistent with acts of private violence” or “the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with the guerillas,” rather than being based on a political opinion that MartinezQuintero held or that may have been imputed to her. See id. In similar cases, where there was no evidence of a political motive and the record revealed only private, extortion-type threats by FARC guerillas, we have declined to find a nexus between the claimed persecution and a statutorily protected ground. For example, in Rivera v. United States Attorney General, an asylum petitioners’ family members were murdered because they refused to pay a “war tax” to the FARC. 487 F.3d 815, 818 (11th Cir. 2007). After the murders, the petitioners received threats and demands that the war tax be paid. Id. at 819. We concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding that the FARC’s motive for persecuting the petitioners’ family was to raise funds for its guerilla war against the Colombian government, rather than the petitioners’ actual or imputed political opinion. Id. at 822-823. In Martinez-Quintero’s case, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that she failed to establish a nexus between her claimed persecution and an actual or imputed political opinion. As the IJ observed, the evidence makes clear that the FARC threatened her because her common-law husband was participating in the investigation of his sisters’ murders and refused to cooperate with them by withdrawing from the investigation, not because of any 13 political opinion that she held or that was imputed to her. In fact, MartinezQuintero acknowledged that she and her common-law husband were not active in the Liberal Party; and she presented no evidence that the threatening telephone calls ever mentioned her political opinion or targeted her because of her political opinion. See, e.g., id. at 822 (“The FARC never demanded that [the petitioner] cease any political activities, never accused [the petitioner] of being a government operative, and never demanded that his family cease involvement in the Liberal Party.”); Sanchez, 392 F.3d at 438 (upholding denial of asylum because there was “no evidence establishing [the petitioner]’s actual or imputed political opinion, much less any nexus between [the petitioner]’s political opinion and the FARC’s alleged persecution”). Here, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Martinez-Quintero suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of an actual or imputed political opinion.
Alternatively, Martinez-Quintero argues that she is a member of a “special” group, namely, those who have cooperated with the Colombian government’s investigations against the FARC and who “oppose” the FARC. AR at 18. Consequently, she claims that her case satisfies the threshold for persecution based upon “membership in a social group.” See INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (stating that asylum may be granted if the alien can demonstrate 14 “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in a particular social group”). We have stated that INA’s “particular social group” category “should not be a ‘catch all’ for all persons alleging persecution who do not fit elsewhere.” Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1198 (11th Cir. 2006). Rather, we have adhered to the BIA’s interpretation that the “particular social group” category “refers to persons who share a common, immutable characteristic,” such as “sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership.” Id. at 1193 (citations, alterations, and internal quotations omitted). In assessing whether an asylum petitioner belongs to a particular social group, the BIA has focused on two things: (1) immutability; and (2) social visibility. See id. at 1194 (citation omitted). In this case, Martinez-Quintero seeks to construe her social group as being those who “the guerillas [have] targeted within the society” for opposing them, including “local officials, civic leaders, business owners, cattlemen, farmers, and teachers.” AR at 18. Elsewhere, Martinez-Quintero broadly describes her putative social group as being “anyone engaged in any kind of activity, especially in collaboration with the government.” Br. of Pet’r at 16. Were we to accept Martinez-Quintero’s broad formulation of her social group as encompassing all of the people who “the guerillas [have] targeted within the society,” AR at 18, the 15 result would be to create a “catch-all” category “for all persons alleging persecution who do not fit elsewhere.”5 See Castillo-Arias, 446 F.3d at 1198. This we decline to do. Accordingly, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that she suffered persecution, or has a well-founded fear of persecution, “on account of” her “membership in a particular social group,” as that term has been construed by the BIA and in our case law. See INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).