[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12602 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 22, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
ACTING CLERK
Agency No. A089-160-289
NATALIA RAMIREZ-AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 22, 2010)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Natalia Ramirez-Aguilar petitions pro se for review of the denial of her
application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA § 241(b)(3); 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals and the
immigration judge found that Ramirez failed to prove she was eligible for asylum
or withholding of removal because her allegations were not sufficiently detailed or
corroborated to establish she suffered past persecution on account of a protected
ground. We deny the petition.
Ramirez makes two arguments, but we lack jurisdiction to consider one of
those arguments. Ramirez argues that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. Ramirez also argues
that she was eligible for relief under the Convention, but she failed to present that
argument to the Board. “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, we lack
jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the [Board].’”
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Ramirez did not suffer past
persecution on account of a protected ground. Ramirez’s testimony that she
received a threatening phone call and a pamphlet establishes that Ramirez suffered
harassment, not persecution. See Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1238
2
(11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.
2005). Although Ramirez argues that she was almost kidnapped because of her
opposition to the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the record does not compel that
finding. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. Ramirez was vague about her political
activities. When prompted for details, Ramirez testified she worked on weekends
with local farmers to prevent them from cultivating drugs, but she later testified
that she served as a “link”and as a “coordinator” between a university and the
farmers. Ramirez also was ambiguous about her attackers’ motives. Ramirez
waited until redirect examination to mention that her attackers identified
themselves with the Revolutionary Forces. According to Ramirez, the attackers
did not identify themselves as members of the Revolutionary Forces and instead
told Ramirez that she would “have to deal with the FARC.” The immigration
judge asked Ramirez to submit a copy of the police report about the incident, but
the Board was entitled to find that the document she submitted did not corroborate
her story. See INS § 208(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Although the
document bore the letterhead of “M. Bogota Judicial Police,” it primarily consisted
of a medical diagnosis.
The record does not support Ramirez’s argument that she has a well-founded
fear of persecution on a protected ground upon return to Guatemala. Ramirez is
not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution because
3
she failed to establish that she suffered past persecution. Ramirez’s speculation
about future attacks based on her alleged attempted kidnapping does not compel a
finding that there is a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §
208.16(b)(1); Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231.
We DENY Ramirez’s petition for asylum and withholding of removal.
4