Edith Yesenia Porras v. U.S. Attorney General , 210 F. App'x 846 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    DECEMBER 13, 2006
    No. 06-13460                    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                   CLERK
    ________________________
    BIA No. A96-287-429
    EDITH YESENIA PORRAS,
    JESUS BOTERO,
    NATALIA BOTERO,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    _________________________
    (December 13, 2006)
    Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Edith Yesenia Porras, husband Jesus Botero, and daughter Natalia Botero,
    petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed
    the denial of Porras’s petition for asylum and withholding of removal by the
    Immigration Judge. We deny the petition.
    Porras is a citizen of Colombia who previously resided in Bogota. Porras
    was admitted to the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in 2002 and she filed
    a timely application for asylum and withholding of removal. Porras testified to
    several incidents in Colombia that led her to flee to the United States.
    Although Porras is certified to teach young children in Colombia, she
    testified at her removal hearing that she worked for a television program, “I Know
    What You Don’t Know,” for which she did research and occasionally conducted
    on-air interviews. She admitted that she was not a “TV personality” but testified
    that she began to receive death threats after researching and airing an episode on
    the town of Tibana that may have implicitly criticized the terrorist organization,
    FARC. Porras did not offer a videotape of this program into evidence. She also
    offered conflicting documents that identified her role on the television program
    variously as program coordinator, production assistant, and secretary. Porras also
    testified that she was a member of the Liberal Party and volunteered on the
    mayoral campaign of Jesús Ricon, the Liberal Party candidate for mayor of Tibana.
    2
    Porras testified that the FARC mentioned her journalistic and political activities
    when they threatened her.
    The IJ concluded that Porras had not established past persecution or an
    objective well-founded fear of future persecution and denied her asylum petition.
    Because Porras was unable to meet the lower burden for asylum, the IJ found that
    Porras necessarily failed to prove that she was entitled to withholding of removal.
    When the BIA expressly adopts the decision of the IJ, we review that
    decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 
    257 F.3d 1262
    , 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We review
    legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact under the substantial evidence test.
    Nreka v. United States Attorney Gen., 
    408 F.3d 1361
    , 1368 (11th Cir. 2005).
    Porras raises two arguments. First, she argues that the record compels the
    conclusion that she established past persecution on account of a protected ground.
    Second, she argues that she established a well-founded fear of future persecution
    on account of a protected ground. We address each argument in turn.
    First, Porras argues that she established past persecution because of her
    political opinion and her employment as a journalist. We disagree. Even assuming
    that journalists are a protected social class under the Immigration and
    Naturalization Act, Porras’s alleged past persecution consisted of one threatening
    phone call, two threatening notes, and a verbal warning. Porras was never harmed,
    and the threats against her, standing alone, do not constitute past persecution.
    3
    Persecution is “an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents
    of verbal harassment or intimidation, and mere harassment does not amount to
    persecution.” Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    451 F.3d 1287
    , 1290 (11th Cir. 2006)
    (citation omitted).
    Second, Porras argues that her evidence, when examined in the light of the
    persecution of Colombian journalists by the FARC, satisfied the objective part of
    the well-founded fear of future persecution standard. Again, we disagree. The IJ
    did not dispute that Porras subjectively feared persecution, but the evidence did not
    compel a finding that this fear was well-founded. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    401 F.3d 1226
    , 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). Although the 2003 State Department
    Country Report for Colombia explained that the FARC intimidates, kidnaps, and
    occasionally kills journalists, Porras failed to present any evidence that her
    notoriety as a journalist would outlast her five-year absence from Colombia or that
    the FARC might single her out. See Al 
    Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1287
    .
    Because Porras’s asylum claim fails, so does her claim for withholding of
    removal, see 
    id. at 1292–93.
    PETITION DENIED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-13460

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 846

Judges: Birch, Per Curiam, Pryor, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 12/13/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023