Gustavo Adolfo Restrepo-Velasquez v. U.S. Atty Gen, (11th Cir. 2006)

Text

---

[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

U .S . COURT OF APPEALS

E L E V E N T H CIRCUIT

S e p t e m b e r 8, 2006

N o . 06-11391 T H O M A S K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar CLERK

B IA Nos. A96-271-426 & A96-271-427

G U S T A V O ADOLFO RESTREPO-VELASQUEZ,

LUCE ALBA BEDOYA-BEDOYA,

ALEJANDRA RESTREPO-BEDOYA,

SANTIAGO RESTREPO-BEDOYA,

Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

P etitio n for Review of a Decision of the

B o ard of Immigration Appeals

(S ep tem b er 8, 2006)

B efo re TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

G u s ta v o Adolfo Restrepo-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Colombia, p e titio n s for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirm ed the denial of his application for asylum. Other members of RestrepoV elasq u ez's family depend on his application. Restrepo-Velasquez argues that the B IA erred because the decision of the Immigration Judge is not supported by su b stan tial evidence. We deny Restrepo-Velasquez's petition.

I. BACKGROUND In December 2002, Restrepo-Velasquez entered the United States as a nonim m ig r a n t visitor. Within a month of his arrival, Restrepo-Velasquez filed an ap p licatio n for asylum and withholding of removal that alleged persecution by the R ev o lu tio n ary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense F o rces of Colombia (AUC). Restrepo-Velasquez alleged that the FARC and AUC p ersecu ted him based on his activities with "Project for the Future," which is a b ran ch of the Conservative Party.

Restrepo-Velasquez asserted several incidents of persecution. RestrepoV elasq u ez alleged that in December 2000, the FARC telephoned his business and w a rn e d him to discontinue his political activities. Restrepo-Velasquez also alleged th at the FARC demanded extortion money from him every six months starting in J u n e 2001. Restrepo-Velasquez asserted that, in April 2001, AUC members d em an d ed that he join their group because his lucrative business would help fund th eir organization. Restrepo-Velasquez also alleged that, in January 2002, the F A R C burst into his office told him and his secretary to discontinue RestrepoV elasq u ez's participation in Project for the Future. Restrepo-Velasquez also as se rted that, in June 2002, the FARC threatened his son at Restrepo-Velasquez's p lace of business. Restrepo-Velasquez alleged that, in September 2002, the AUC d em an d ed money from him.

Restrepo-Velasquez alleged that in October 2002, he was kidnapped and b eaten by a group of men. As Restrepo-Velasquez left a meeting that supported a C o n serv ativ e councilwoman, a group of men threw Restrepo-Velasquez into the b ack of a car, drove him to an undetermined location, stripped him, and beat him.

According to Restrepo-Velasquez, the men demanded that he discontinue his work f o r Project for the Future and pay money to the FARC. The men left after R e str ep o - V e la sq u e z offered them 50 million pesos. Restrepo-Velasquez submitted a medical certificate from his doctor to show that he suffered injuries on his face, b ack , left side, shoulder, right arm, and right leg.

The IJ denied Restrepo-Velasquez's application. The IJ found that R estrep o -V elasq u ez failed to establish a nexus between his political activities and th e extortionate activities of the FARC and AUC. The IJ stated that "all the d o c u m e n ts submitted by [Restrepo-Velasquez] concerning the alleged threats refer to a threat of extortion and none of these documents mention any crimes against [ h im ] or death threats or kidnappings on account of [his] political . . . activities." The IJ also found that Restrepo-Velasquez's political activities with Project for the F u tu r e were "scant" and he failed to explain why the FARC did not persecute other m e m b e r s of Project for the Future. The IJ concluded that extortion, not political o p in io n , motivated the incidents Restrepo-Velasquez alleged. The BIA affirmed th e decision of the IJ without opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e review the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA ex p ressly adopts the decision of the IJ. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (1 1 th Cir. 2001). "Findings of fact made by . . . the [Immigration Judge] may be r ev e r se d by this Court only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that th e record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of th e administrative findings." Tan v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th C ir. 2006) (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION T o apply for asylum, an alien must be a "refugee." 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).

A "refugee" is any person who is unable to return to his home country "because of [ p a st] persecution or a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race, relig io n , nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Id . § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). "[P]ersecution is an extreme concept, r eq u ir in g more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation." Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2004). To establish p e r se cu tio n based on political opinion, the applicant must present "specific, d etailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for p e r se cu tio n on account of such an opinion." Id. at 1231. Restrepo-Velasquez f aile d to establish that he suffered persecution "on account of . . . [his] political o p in io n ." 8U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

Restrepo-Velasquez argues that the extortion threats were motivated in part b y his activities with Project for the Future, but there are two problems with this arg u m en t. First, except for the kidnapping and assault in October 2002, the in cid en ts in which Restrepo-Velasquez alleged that references were made to his p o litical activities did not rise to the level of persecution because they were no "m o r e than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment of intimidation." Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. Second, although the kidnapping and beating in cid en t in October 2002 rises to the level of persecution, the record does not co m p el the conclusion that this incident was motivated by his political activities.

See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374. Restrepo-Velasquez testified that the men left after he o ffered them money, and the IJ found that "none of the documents mention any c rim e s against [him] . . . on account of [his] political or social activities." Although Restrepo-Velasquez contends that the IJ erroneously relied on the a b s en c e of evidence that other participants in Project for the Future were p e r se cu te d , the record does not compel the conclusion that Restrepo-Velasquez w as harassed on the basis of his political opinion. Substantial evidence still su p p o rts the conclusion of the IJ that the extortion threats were criminal activities, n o t based on Restrepo-Velasquez's political activities.

Restrepo-Velasquez also failed to establish "a well-founded fear of [future] p ersecu tio n . . . on account of . . . [his] political opinion." 8U.S.C. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(4 2 )(A ). The record does not compel the conclusion that RestrepoV elasq u ez would be persecuted based upon his political activities. Evidence of R estrep o -V elasq u ez's political participation was "scant," and most of the incidents th a t Restrepo-Velasquez alleged were related to extortion, not his political activ ities. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the IJ that RestrepoV elasq u ez failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.

IV. CONCLUSION R estrep o -V elasq u ez's petition for review is DENIED.

---