Opinion ID: 52405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arango Echeverri’s Claim

Text: After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the IJ’s denial of Arango Echeverri’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence.2 With 2 Where, as here, the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision, we review both the BIA and the IJ’s rulings. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). To the extent the BIA’s and the IJ’s decision rests on a legal conclusion, or review is de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2001). We review a factual determination that an alien is statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the substantial evidence 6 regard to past persecution, the FARC’s telephone threats and the funeral wreath placed on Arango Echeverri’s doorstep do not rise to the level of persecution. This Court has held that harassment, such as threats and acts of intimidation, without any physical harm, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that three threatening phone calls, an in-person threat to a family member, and a bomb placed in the petitioner’s mailbox did not amount to past persecution). Because the FARC’s harassment of Arango Echeverri does not amount to past persecution, Arango Echeverri is not entitled to a presumption of a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Nor does the record compel the conclusion that there is a reasonable possibility that Arango Echeverri personally will suffer persecution if she returns to Colombia.3 Even assuming Arango Echeverri’s fear of future persecution is subjectively genuine, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that it is not objectively reasonable given that Arango Echeverri was test. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84. Under the substantial evidence test, “we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). The fact that evidence in the record may support a contrary conclusion does not warrant reversal. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 3 Because substantial evidence supports the finding that Arango Echeverri does not face a reasonable possibility of personal persecution, we do not address her arguments regarding whether she showed she could avoid persecution by relocating within Colombia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2). 7 never physically harmed.4 Although Arango Echeverri emphasizes that the FARC kidnapped her nephews and murdered her brother-in-law, these events occurred in 1995. Arango Echeverri remained in Colombia for another seven years, and there is no evidence that the FARC harmed or attempted to harm her physically during that time. Additionally, Arango Echeverri has relatives who have continued to live in Colombia unharmed. Furthermore, Arango Echeverri has not presented evidence suggesting that the FARC continues to be interested in her. Given that Arango Echeverri failed to carry her lower burden of proof with regard to asylum, she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).5 PETITION DENIED. 4 There is also substantial evidence to suggest that Arango Echeverri’s subjective fear was not genuine given that Arango Echeverri only sought asylum on her fourth trip to the United States and her three previous trips had occurred after she began receiving telephone threats, her nephews had been kidnapped and her brother-in-law had been killed. 5 On appeal, Arango Echeverri does not raise any challenge to the denial of CAT relief and has abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. 8