[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13756 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 1, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A98-863-130,
A98-863-131
FRANCISCO MALAVET DELGADO,
OLGA LUCIA ARISTIZABAL BOTERO,
LORENA MALAVET ARISTIZABAL,
PAOLA ANDREA MALAVET ARISTIZABAL,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 1, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Malavet-Delgado, his wife Olga Lucia Aristizabal-Botero and
their two daughters, Lorena Malavet-Arstizabal and Paola Andrea Malavet-
Arstizabal, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order dismissing their
application for asylum. After review, we deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Alleged Persecution
On February 26, 2005, Malavet-Delgado, a citizen of Colombia, filed his
application for asylum, claiming that he was persecuted by the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”) on account of his political opinion and
membership in a particular social group.1 According to his application and hearing
testimony, Malavet-Delgado is a lawyer who, from 1987 to 1992, worked for the
military in a region where the FARC was influential. From 1993 to 1995, Malavet-
Delgado worked as a criminal prosecutor in the state attorney’s office in Cali.
Some of his cases involved FARC leaders. In 1995, Malavet-Delgado resigned
from the state attorney’s office when a new attorney general was appointed. From
1995 to 2004, Malavet-Delgado worked as a criminal defense attorney until he left
for the United States in 2004.
1
Malavet-Delgado’s wife and daughters are listed on his asylum application as derivative
beneficiaries. Although our opinion refers to Malavet-Delgado, our holding applies with equal force
to his family.
2
According to Malavet-Delgado, his former supervisor at the state attorney
general’s office, Felipe Alberto Lopez Soto (“Lopez”), was murdered on January
28, 1996, several months after Lopez resigned from the state attorney’s office.
Malavet-Delgado did not attend the funeral because he “was afraid that the people
who had murdered [Lopez] could be on the lookout for someone like [him]
attending . . . .”
Before Lopez died, he introduced Malavet-Delgado to a member of the
Unidado Popular Movement (“MPU”), a political organization that supported
President Uribe’s fight against the FARC. Although Lopez was not a member of
the MPU, he sympathized with its cause. In 1998, after Malavet-Delgado resigned
from the state attorney’s office and Lopez was killed, Malavet-Delgado joined the
MPU and started attending meetings in different regions of Colombia.
A year after joining the MPU (i.e., 1999), Malavet-Delgado began receiving
threatening phone calls and letters from the FARC stating that he would soon be
joining Lopez in the cemetery or that Lopez requested his presence. As a result of
these threats, Malavet-Delgado moved with his family from Cali to Bogota.
On May 22, 2001, Malavet-Delgado was leaving the prosecutor’s office in
Cali when unidentified people on motorcycles fired shots at him. Malavet-Delgado
reported the incident to the prosecutor’s office. In August 2001, Malavet-Delgado
and his family moved to the United States to live.
3
After realizing that he could not practice as an attorney in the United States,
Malavet-Delgado returned with his daughters to Colombia, leaving his wife in the
United States. In August 2003 and January 2004, Malavet-Delgado traveled to
New York for business, both times returning to Colombia. Malavet-Delgado
protected his daughters by sending them to a school with lots of security, carrying
a weapon and taking them to and from school each day.
Malavet-Delgado did not intend to move to the United States until he
received an anonymous letter in the mail in 2004. The note, made of letters cut
from magazines and pasted together, stated, “Dr. Malabet we have not forgotten
you[.] Your daughters are very beautiful[,] aren’t they?” Malavet-Delgado
interpreted this as a threat against his daughters and came with them to the United
States on February 28, 2004 on non-immigrant pleasure visas with authority to stay
until August 27, 2004.
B. Immigration Proceedings
On December 27, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
issued Notices to Appear (“NTA”), alleging that Malavet-Delgado and his
daughters had overstayed their visitors visas by remaining in the United States
after August 27, 2004 without authorization. Similarly, DHS issued an NTA for
Malavet-Delgado’s wife, alleging that she had remained in the United States after
4
June 30, 2002 without authorization. Malavet-Delgado appeared before the IJ
with counsel and conceded removability.
After a hearing at which Malavet-Delgado testified, the IJ denied Malavet-
Delgado’s February 26, 2005 application for asylum, withholding of removal and
CAT relief and granted his application for voluntary departure. The IJ found that
Malavet-Delgado’s hearing testimony was not credible and, in the alternative, that
Malavet-Delgado did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
Malavet-Delgado appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ erred in using the
new credibility standards in the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, §
101(a)(3), (d)(4)(C), 119 Stat. 231, 303, 304-05 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1229a(c)(4)(C)), which were not applicable to his February 26,
2005 asylum application. The BIA found it unnecessary to address Malavet-
Delgado’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because, even if he was
deemed credible, Malavet-Delgado failed to establish his eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. The BIA concluded that Malavet-Delgado failed to show
past persecution because “[t]he alleged events d[id] not rise to the level of
persecution.” The BIA also concluded that Malavet-Delgado failed to show a well-
founded fear of future persecution because the FARC had not shown an interest in
him since 2004. The BIA found that Malavet-Delgado was not entitled to CAT
5
relief because he had not shown that it was more likely than not that he would be
tortured if he returned to Colombia. Malavet-Delgado petitioned for review.
II. DISCUSSION
A. IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision except to the
extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s order and
expressly abstained from ruling on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Thus, we
limit our review to the grounds given in the BIA’s final order, that is, whether
Malavet-Delgado is statutorily eligible for asylum assuming his allegations are
true. We review only what the BIA actually ruled on and decline Malavet-
Delgado’s request to remand with instructions to the BIA to first address his
challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding before addressing whether he was
statutorily ineligible for asylum.2
B. Past Persecution
Malavet-Delgado challenges the BIA’s conclusion that, even if his testimony
was credible, he nonetheless failed to establish eligibility for asylum based on past
2
As noted earlier, Malavet-Delgado had argued to the BIA that the IJ erred in applying the
REAL ID Act’s new credibility standards to his case because his asylum application was filed before
its enactment. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. at 305 (providing that the REAL ID
Act applies only to applications filed after the date of enactment). The BIA did not address this
argument and, instead, accepted Malavet-Delgado’s testimony as true.
6
persecution.3 “To establish asylum based on past persecution, the applicant must
prove (1) that [he] was persecuted, and (2) that the persecution was on account of a
protected ground.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006).
Although the INA does not define persecution, this Court has noted that not all
“exceptional treatment” constitutes persecution, which is “an extreme concept,
requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,
and . . . mere harassment does not amount to persecution.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at
1231 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Consequently, mere threats, without
more, do not rise to the level of persecution. See id.; see also Djonda v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008); Silva, 448 F.3d at 1237.4
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Malavet-
Delgado failed to show he suffered past persecution. Malavet-Delgado’s claim of
past persecution rests on three incidents: (1) in 1999, he received threatening phone
calls and letters from the FARC; (2) on May 22, 2001, he was shot at by unknown
persons on motorcycles for unknown reasons; and (3) in 2004, he received an
3
Malavet-Delgado does not challenge the BIA’s rulings with regard to his asylum claim
based on future persecution or his claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Thus, these
claims are deemed abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th
Cir. 2005).
4
We review the BIA’s factual determinations regarding whether an applicant is eligible for
asylum under the substantial evidence test. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84. Under the substantial
evidence test, “we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
7
anonymous note from an unknown person for an unknown reason, tacitly
threatening his daughters’ safety. Although the 1999 verbal threats were linked to
the FARC, there is no evidence that the FARC took any further steps. Thus, the
FARC’s threats were nothing more than harassment. The record is silent as to the
motives and identities of the perpetrators of the 2001 attempted shooting and the
2004 anonymous note. Thus, there is no evidence that they were connected to
Malavet-Delgado’s political activity. On this record, we are not compelled to
conclude that Malavet-Delgado suffered past persecution on account of a
statutorily protected factor.
PETITION DENIED.
8