Opinion ID: 49629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restrepo’s Claim

Text: Based on the record as a whole, we conclude that the IJ’s denial of Restrepo’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence. With regard to past persecution, the FARC’s harassment of Restrepo does not rise to the level of persecution. “Although the INA does not expressly define ‘persecution’ for purposes of qualifying as a ‘refugee,’ we have discussed other circuits’ holdings that ‘persecution’ is an ‘extreme concept,’ requiring ‘more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,’ and that ‘[m]ere harassment does not amount to persecution.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11 th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11 th Cir. 2000) and holding that menacing phone calls and threats to family members and other members of the group do not rise to level of past persecution). Restrepo received threatening phone calls and was forced to leave his job at the power plant and relocate to Medellin. The FARC never physically harmed Restrepo or even attempted to harm him. Such threats and acts of intimidation, without any physical harm, do not rise to the level of past persecution. See 7 Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (concluding that petitioner did not show past persecution where she received threatening phone calls, her brother was threatened in person and a bomb was placed in her work mailbox). The finding that Restrepo did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution is also supported by substantial evidence. A well-founded fear of persecution may be established by showing (1) past persecution that creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, (2) a reasonable possibility of personal persecution that cannot be avoided by relocating within the subject country, or (3) a pattern or practice in the subject country of persecuting members of a statutorily defined group of which he is a part. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (2), (3)(i). Because the FARC’s harassment of Restrepo does not amount to past persecution, Restrepo is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Nor does the record compel the conclusion that there is a reasonable possibility that Restrepo will suffer persecution if he returns to Colombia. While Restrepo’s subjective fear of persecution may be genuine, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that it is not objectively reasonable. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289 (explaining that, in order to be well-founded, a fear of persecution must be both “subjectively genuine and objectively 8 reasonable”). Apart from telephone threats, the FARC has taken no action against Restrepo or his family since he left his position as a paramedic and moved to Medellin. Restrepo lived and worked as a sales manager in Medellin for over six months without being harmed. After entering the United States, Restrepo voluntarily returned to Colombia for another six months and again was not harmed. His wife and children have continued throughout to live in Medellin and have not been harmed. The executive secretary of Equipo Colombia, under whom Restrepo worked for the Conservative Party, also continues to live in Colombia. Given these facts, we are not compelled to conclude that Restrepo has a well-founded fear of persecution. Given Restrepo’s failure to carry his lower burden of proof with regard to asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11 th Cir. 2005) (noting that, where an applicant fails to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, his other claims of withholding of removal under the INA or for CAT relief generally fail).1 PETITION DENIED. 1 On appeal, Restrepo did not raise any argument challenging the denial of CAT relief and, therefore, has abandoned that issue. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. 9