[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 16, 2005
No. 04-13591
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A79-430-161
& A79-430-162
ROSA ELENA MUNERA-MUNERA,
SEBASTIAN VARGAS-MUNERA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 16, 2005)
Before HULL, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rosa Elena Munera-Munera and her minor son, Sebastian Vargas-Munera
(petitioners), who are natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the decision of the
Immigration Judge to deny them asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioners attempted to enter the United States without a valid visa in
December 2001. The Immigration and Naturalization Service issued petitioners a
notice to appear and charged them with removability under 8 U.S.C. section
1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for seeking admission into the United States by fraud or willful
misrepresentation of a material fact, and 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), for
applying for admission without valid entry documents. Petitioners conceded
removability and requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the CAT.
Munera-Munera stated that she feared Sebastian would be kidnapped or they
would both be killed if they returned to Colombia. Munera-Munera stated that she
received anonymous telephone calls from men who threatened to kidnap Sebastian
and who demanded money from her. Munera-Munera also stated that she was
threatened at her home by a man with a gun, and, on one occasion, a kidnap
attempt was made on Sebastian. Petitioners fled Colombia after Munera-Munera
2
received an anonymous note that threatened that Sebastian would be kidnapped or
killed if Munera-Munera did not pay 10,000 Columbian dollars. Munera-Munera
also stated that she participated in several political campaigns for the Conservative
Party, and that she stopped her work when she began receiving threats to kidnap
Sebastian.
The Immigration Judge found Munera-Munera credible, but found that she
had failed to establish that the threats against her were on account of a protected
ground and denied relief. The BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge
and dismissed the appeal. The BIA found that petitioners had not established a
“nexus between the actions that ha[d] been taken against them in the past and that
they fear will be taken against them in the future and any of the five grounds
specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
II. DISCUSSION
We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it expressly
adopts the opinion of the Immigration Judge. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Insofar as the BIA adopts the reasoning of the
Immigration Judge, we also review that decision. See Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75
F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996). We review factual determinations of the BIA
under the substantial evidence test. Sepulveda v. United States Atty. Gen., 401
3
F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005). We must affirm the decision of the BIA if it is
“supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Id. “Under this highly deferential standard of review, the
[BIA]’s decision can be reversed only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact
finder to find otherwise.” Id. (citation omitted).
An alien who arrives in or is present in the United States may apply for
asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). An alien who establishes, with specific and
credible evidence, either (1) past persecution on account of his or her membership
in a particular social group, political opinion, or other statutorily listed factor, or
(2) a “well-founded fear” that his or her membership in a particular social group,
political opinion, or other statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution, is
eligible for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b); Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1287. “[A]n
applicant must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution is subjectively
genuine and objectively reasonable.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289. To establish a
nexus between the statutorily listed factor and the feared persecution the alien must
“present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be
singled out for persecution on account of” the statutorily listed factor. Forgue v.
United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations marks
and citation omitted).
4
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the petitioners are not
entitled to asylum. Petitioners failed to show that they had been persecuted or that
they had a well-founded fear of future persecution. “‘[P]ersecution’ is an ‘extreme
concept,’ requiring ‘more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or
intimidation.’” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1231 (citation omitted). “‘[M]ere
harassment does not amount to persecution.’” Id. Although petitioners presented
credible evidence of threats, the evidence does not amount to more than mere
harassment. Neither Munera-Munera or her son were harmed. Nor did petitioners
establish that they had been or would be targeted on account of a protected ground.
Although petitioners presented evidence of Munera-Munera’s political activity,
petitioners presented no evidence that the harassment they suffered was motivated
by anything other than financial gain. The evidence does not compel the
conclusion that petitioners were persecuted or had a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of their political opinion.
The petitioners also failed to establish that they are entitled to withholding of
removal under the INA. Petitioners are entitled to withholding of removal if they
can show that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). “This
5
standard is more stringent than the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum. . . .
[B]ecause [petitioners] cannot meet the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, it
is a fortiori that [they] cannot meet the withholding of removal standard.”
D-Muhumed v. United States Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
6