Opinion ID: 791032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Internal Resettlement Alternative

Text: 25 Although we have concluded that the deficiencies in the BIA's analysis of whether Vente has a well-founded fear of persecution mandate a remand of this case to the BIA, we briefly address his argument that the BIA erred in determining that he had an internal resettlement alternative. Under the governing asylum regulations, [a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). An applicant who has not established past persecution bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is government-sponsored. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). 26 The IJ concluded that Vente had an obligation to relocate within Colombia. In its analysis of whether Vente had established past persecution, the BIA noted that Vente had lived in Cali from 1993 until 1998, and again prior to his departure to Colombia in February of 2001; he testified that he had no problems with paramilitaries while living in Cali. The BIA went on to find that [Vente]'s ability to live in Cali for a number of years, and immediately prior to his departure from Colombia, suggests either that the `threat' of persecution was not country-wide or that he was not a serious target of political violence. It is unclear whether the BIA meant, by making this finding, to indicate its agreement with the IJ's internal resettlement analysis. A straightforward reading of the BIA's decision indicates that, rather than making an internal resettlement determination, it merely found that Vente's prior residence in Cali was evidence that he had not suffered past persecution. 27 Thus, to the extent that the BIA appears not to have made an explicit finding that Vente did not have a well-founded fear of persecution because he could relocate to Cali, his argument misconstrues the BIA's decision. We note, however, that Vente's residence in Cali from 1993 to 1998, long before he received the threats on which his asylum claim is based, is quite irrelevant to whether he suffered past persecution due to the threats and to whether relocation to Cali (or another part of Colombia) was a reasonable possibility for him after he received the threats. We also do not believe that Vente's brief residence in Cali, which was apparently without incident, prior to his departure from Colombia in 2001 determines whether he has a reasonable possibility of relocating to Cali. 28 On remand, we encourage the BIA, if it deems necessary an inquiry into Vente's potential for internal relocation within Colombia, to be more explicit in its reasoning on this issue and to look only at the resettlement possibilities that currently exist for Vente without reference to his place of residence there before he received the threats at issue in his asylum claim. We also reiterate that, on remand, it is Vente's obligation to demonstrate that he would not have avoided future persecution by relocating to Cali in 2001, however brief that relocation may have been.