[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-11773 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 1, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A099-551-187, A099-551-188
ALEJANDRO JOSE RODRIGUEZ-POMPA,
BEBSABE ASTROS-GARCIA,
ALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ-ASTROS,
VALENTINA RODRIGUEZ-ASTROS,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 1, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Jose Rodriguez-Pompa, a native and citizen of Venezuela,
petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that
affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ). The decision denied
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s decision in this case because the BIA did not expressly
adopt the IJ’s decision. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir.
2001) (noting that we review the BIA’s decision; but “[i]nsofar as the [BIA] adopts
the IJ’s reasoning, we will review the IJ’s decision as well”). We review de novo
legal determinations of the BIA. Id. A factual determination that an alien is
unentitled to relief “must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence.”
Mazariegos v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). To
reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports
reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287
(11th Cir. 2003).
1
Rodriguez also applied for asylum and listed his wife and two daughters as derivative
beneficiaries; but the IJ determined that all four were statutorily ineligible for asylum because
the asylum application had not been timely filed. And Rodriguez’s wife and daughters were
ineligible for derivative relief on the withholding of removal and CAT relief claims. See
Delgado v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007). So, our decision applies
only to Rodriguez.
2
An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or
unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including political
opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). To establish asylum
eligibility, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, show (1) past
persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a “well-founded fear”
that the statutorily listed factor will cause such future persecution. 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(a), (b).
The withholding of removal standard is more stringent than the standard for
asylum. See Zheng v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, when a petitioner fails to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, his
claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief necessarily fail. Id.
Rodriguez sought relief from removal based on his opposition to the regime
of President Hugo Chavez and the regime’s treatment of the oil industry in
Venezuela. Rodriguez worked for PDVSA, the Venezuelan national oil company;
and in 2002, the government replaced the Board of Directors of PDVSA with
Chavez supporters. Rodriguez participated in marches and protests against this
change in the Board of Directors.2 Members of the Bolivarian Circles (a pro-
2
Rodriguez was a member of the “People of the Oil,” an organization created by the
employees of the oil industry to protest against Chavez.
3
Chavez organization) began making threatening phone calls to Rodriguez and told
him that he should stop opposing the government. In December 2002, Rodriguez
participated in a month-long strike of the oil industry.
In March 2003, Rodriguez’s company sent him to another city in an attempt
to reduce the threats against him. While there, Rodriguez continued participating
in meetings and planning actions against Chavez. And he still received threatening
phone calls from the Bolivarian Circles. On one occasion, when Rodriguez was
leaving work, a vehicle intercepted him; and several armed men approached his
car. To escape, Rodriguez put his truck in reverse and stepped on the accelerator.
After this incident, Rodriguez continued working for the referendum to revoke
Chavez’s leadership; but the referendum failed and the Bolivarian Circles
continued to threaten Rodriguez.
In May 2004, the directors of PDVSA asked Rodriguez to resign because of
his participation in the strike against Chavez. Rodriguez tried to obtain other
employment but was unable to do so because of his previous activities in
opposition to Chavez. He left Venezuela in October 2004 because he feared the
Bolivarian Circles.
The BIA agreed with the IJ that the events Rodriguez alleged did not rise to
the level of past persecution and Rodriguez had not shown that it was more likely
than not that he would be persecuted if he returned to Venezuela on account of his
4
protests against the government for its treatment of the oil industry. On appeal,
Rodriguez argues that the incidents he alleged cumulatively established past
persecution at the hands of the Bolivarian Circles.3
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that
Rodriguez did not demonstrate past persecution. We have explained that
persecution is an “extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of
verbal harassment or intimidation, and that mere harassment does not amount to
persecution.” See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.
2005) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Ruiz v. Gonzalez, 479
F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the BIA must review the
cumulative effect of an applicant’s events to determine whether the events
cumulatively amount to past persecution). The events Rodriguez experienced --
including repeated threatening phone calls and a single encounter with the
Bolivarian Circles where he was not harmed -- are insufficiently extreme to
establish persecution. These incidents were isolated and amounted to mere
harassment. And Rodriguez’s termination from his employment and later inability
3
Rodriguez also challenges the IJ’s determinations that he was not credible and that he
did not establish persecution on account of a protected ground. But we review only the BIA’s
decision because the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision; and the BIA did not discuss
the IJ’s credibility or nexus determinations. See Lopez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 504 F.3d 1341,
1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that because the IJ finding that petitioner challenged had not
been adopted by the BIA, it did not form part of the order under review).
5
to find a job is insufficient to compel a finding of persecution. See Zheng, 451
F.3d at 1291 (concluding that petitioner’s job termination did not rise to the level
of persecution where petitioner failed to show how long he searched for a
replacement job in the same city and provided no evidence demonstrating that he
sought employment after relocating to another city).
To show a well-founded fear of future persecution, Rodriguez had to
establish that his fear both was “subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.”
Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289. “[T]he objective prong can be fulfilled . . . by
establishing . . . that [petitioner] . . . has a good reason to fear future persecution.”
Id. (internal quotation omitted). Rodriguez has shown no such good reason. The
evidence demonstrated that he made six trips in and out of Venezuela between
2003 and 2004, the time during which he received threatening phone calls and
faced an armed encounter with the Bolivarian Circles. That Rodriguez felt safe
enough to return back to his country many times undercuts an objective fear of
future persecution.
Rodriguez’s failure to establish eligibility for asylum forecloses his
eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at
1292.
PETITION DENIED.
6