[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 09, 2009
No. 08-12568 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A72-443-886
FRANCISCO DE JESUS JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(February 9, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Francisco De Jesus Juarez, a native of Guatemala, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders (1) vacating the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order terminating his removal proceedings because of a deficient
Notice to Appear (“NTA”); and (2) dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s order denying
him asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”) and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). After review, we deny the petition for review.
According to Juarez, leftist guerillas in Guatemala came to his house several
times and threatened him because they wanted him to join them. After these
incidents, Juarez in 1989 moved to Guatemala City for work. That same year, the
guerillas found him, cut his face with a knife and told him they would kill him the
next time. However, Juarez had no further encounters with the guerillas after
1989. Juarez does not claim he participated in political activity.
Juarez began collecting money to come to the United States. In October
1991, Juarez borrowed money from his brother-in-law and paid a “coyote” to
smuggle him into the United States. Juarez’s family members in Guatemala have
told him the leftist guerillas continue to ask about his whereabouts. The 1997
Country Report for Guatemala indicates that, in 1996, the government and leftist
guerillas signed peace accords, ending a 36-year civil war and, in 1997, the
umbrella guerilla organization alliance dissolved itself to devote its efforts to legal
2
political activity. The 2005 Country Report for Guatemala contains no mention of
the guerillas’ presence in the country.
The IJ and the BIA concluded that Juarez failed to establish his status as a
refugee. See INA § 208(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) (giving discretion to
grant asylum if an alien meets the INA’s definition of “refugee”). A “refugee” is:
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality
. . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.
INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To carry his burden to prove
statutory “refugee” status, an asylum applicant must, with specific and credible
evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or
(2) a “well-founded fear” that the statutorily listed factor will cause future
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b); Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247,
1257 (11th Cir. 2006).1 To establish persecution by a guerilla group on account of
a political opinion, it is not enough to show that the petitioner has been or will be
targeted “due to [his] refusal to cooperate with the guerillas”; instead, the petitioner
1
We review the factual determinations regarding whether an applicant is eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal under the substantial evidence test. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2001). 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).
3
must show that the guerillas have targeted or will target him because of his actual
or imputed political opinion. Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th
Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Juarez failed to
show either past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor or a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor. Because
Juarez did not carry his burden as to asylum, he likewise failed to meet the higher
burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2001).2 We also conclude that the supervisory asylum
officer’s illegible signature on Juarez’s NTA did not render it defective and, thus,
the BIA properly vacated the IJ’s order dismissing the removal proceedings on that
basis.
PETITION DENIED.
2
Juarez’s appeal brief states that he should be granted CAT relief, but offers no further
argument or explanation. Accordingly, Juarez has abandoned this issue on appeal. See Rowe v.
Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). Additionally, we lack jurisdiction to
address Juarez’s argument, raised in his reply brief, challenging the denial of his application for
cancellation of removal because Juarez did not exhaust his administrative remedies by
presenting this claim to the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247,
1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
4