Alba Lucia Garcia Vinasco v. U.S. Attorney General , 315 F. App'x 802 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13836 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A98-709-140,
A98-709-141
ALBA LUCIA GARCIA VINASCO,
JENNIFER CASTRO GARCIA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(February 24, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alba Lucia Garcia Vinasco and her minor daughter, Jennifer Castro Garcia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of
removal.1 Garcia contends that she suffered past persecution in Colombia based on
her political opinion and her work with the Liberal Party of Colombia. She asserts
that in December 2003 an unknown man threatened to kill her and her daughter if
she did not tell him their names. She also states that she received threatening
phone calls from the FARC.
At a hearing before the IJ, Garcia testified about her involvement in a
campaign for the Liberal Party’s candidate for mayor of Manizales, but she could
not remember the date of the elections. The IJ found that Garcia’s testimony about
her work in the campaign was very generalized and that it cast doubt on her
credibility. There were some discrepancies between her testimony and the
corroborating evidence that she submitted. Garcia testified that she was just a
helper on the campaign, but she presented a letter from the president of the Liberal
Board of Caldas stating that she served in a leadership role.
As for the threatening encounter with the unidentified man in December
2003, the IJ found some discrepancies between the police report and Garcia’s
1
Alba Lucia Garcia Vinasco (“Garcia”) is the lead petitioner; her asylum application
included her daughter Jennifer as a derivative applicant. Therefore, this opinion refers to Garcia.
2
testimony. For example, Garcia testified that the man held a revolver against her
body, but the police report does not even mention that the man had a weapon.
Furthermore, Garcia testified that she feared that her daughter would be harmed,
but she could not explain why her daughter remained in Colombia for several
months after Garcia had fled to the United States.
The IJ discussed a 1996 incident involving some of Garcia’s family
members who were kidnapped as part of an extortion attempt. Garcia testified that
the kidnappers wanted to collect on a personal debt owed by Garcia’s brother.
The IJ found that the incident did not constitute persecution on account of a
political opinion.
The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s factfindings about Garcia’s
experiences in Colombia. The BIA noted that the IJ had found discrepancies
between Garcia’s asylum application and her testimony but had stopped short of
issuing a formal adverse credibility finding. Instead, the case turned on Garcia’s
failure to meet her burden of proof. The BIA concluded that evidence of vague
telephone threats and the December 2003 incident involving an unknown
individual did not amount to past persecution. The BIA doubted Garcia’s story
that after she and her daughter were threatened at gunpoint they managed to escape
without harm by running fifteen feet back into their house. It also agreed with the
IJ’s conclusion that Garcia had not established a well-founded fear of future
3
persecution.
We review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent the BIA expressly
adopts the IJ’s opinion or reasoning. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001). We review the legal issues de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft,
261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the factfindings to determine if
they are supported by substantial evidence. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283. We must
affirm the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. at 1284 (quotation
marks omitted).
An alien seeking asylum has the burden of presenting specific and credible
evidence that shows past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground
such as political opinion or a “well-founded fear” of future persecution based on
that protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). We have described persecution
as an “extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal
harassment or intimidation.” Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted).
A petitioner also can establish a well-founded fear of future persecution by
“specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he will be singled out
for persecution” on account of a protected ground. Ruiz v. United States Att’y
Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).
4
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that Garcia failed to
establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of her political opinion. The threatening phone calls Garcia received from
FARC did not amount to past persecution that would compel reversal of the BIA’s
decision. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. Garcia also failed to establish that the
unknown man who threatened her in December 2003 made those threats on
account of her political opinion. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1258 (stating that “evidence
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”). She did not present specific, detailed facts demonstrating that
her political participation with the Liberal Party was causally connected with the
harassment or that she had an objective well-founded fear of future persecution
based on her political activities. See id.Because Garcia failed to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, her claim
for withholding of removal fails as well. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005). She abandoned her claim for CAT relief by not
raising it on appeal. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2.
PETITION DENIED.
5