[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
-------------------------------------------U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 04-10912 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 21, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar
-------------------------------------------- THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
BIA No. A79-091-989
PETRO CLERGE,
a.k.a. Leslie Junior Delva,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
(April 21, 2005)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petro Clerge, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review
of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which
affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, denial of
withholding of removal, and denial of relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Removal proceedings
commenced after 1 April 1997; the permanent provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), govern this petition. We
deny the petition and affirm the BIA’s decision.
1
Clerge offers no substantive argument on the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of CAT relief.
This issue is abandoned. See Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th
Cir. 2003) (deeming an issue waived where a party fails to include argument and only makes
a passing reference to the order appealed from).
2
“The BIA’s factual determination that [an alien] is removable
and not entitled to asylum must be upheld if it is supported by
substantial evidence.” Mazariegos v. Office of the U.S. Attorney
Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). “Thus, a denial of
asylum may be reversed only if the evidence presented by the
applicant is so powerful that a reasonable factfinder would have to
conclude that the requisite fear of persecution exists.” Id. at 1323-24
(emphasis in original).
Clerge argues first that the BIA erred in reversing the IJ’s
determination that the charge of removability, brought under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), was not supported because the evidence
failed to show that Clerge had the intent to misrepresent himself to
be a United States citizen.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Clerge
was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Section
1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) states that an alien is inadmissible when he
3
“falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to
be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under
this chapter . . . or any other Federal or State law.” Here, the
evidence shows that Clerge initially submitted a fraudulent U.S.
passport to an immigration inspector and indicated that he was a
U.S. citizen on his customs declaration. But Clerge did not admit to
his improprieties until after his entry attempt failed.
Clerge argues next that he is entitled to asylum because his
credible testimony shows a well-founded fear of persecution based
on his participation in Zafe Elev Lekol (ZEL), a student group in
which he was active in 2000. This group, although not political, took
a stance against Lavalasse, the party in power in Haiti at that time,
based on a belief that elections in 2000 were fraudulent. According
to Clerge, two weeks after the December 2000 election, an armed
group of pro-Lavalasse militiamen, the “Chimere”, fired upon the
door to a ZEL meeting at which protests were being planned. The
4
Chimere members stormed the room and beat several ZEL
members; Clerge escaped and went into hiding. Clerge said that
Chimere members went to his parents’ home and threatened to
harm his parents if they did not disclose Clerge’s location.
An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee”: a person
unwilling to return to his country of nationality “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.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). To
establish asylum eligibility, Clerge must show (1) past persecution
(in this case on account of membership in a particular social group
or political opinion), or (2) a “well-founded fear” that his
membership in the ZEL or his political opinion will cause future
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b)(1). A showing of past
persecution creates a presumption of a “well founded fear” of
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1).
5
But “[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of
persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to
another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . if under all
the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to
do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). And under the BIA’s
interpretation of the applicable statutes and regulations, an asylum
applicant must show that he “face[s] a threat of persecution
country-wide.” Mazariegos v. Office of U.S. Attorney Gen., 241
F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Clerge failed to demonstrate asylum eligibility. Clerge submitted
the statement of a fellow ZEL member, Frantz Saint Fleur, who had
attended the December 2000 meeting with Clerge and who since had
been hiding in another town. Clerge admitted that he was able to
remain safely in Haiti for approximately one month after the
incident; he also admitted that he would be able to live safely in the
6
area of Haiti to which Saint Fleur had fled. And Clerge concedes
that the Lavalasse party currently is not in power in Haiti. Clerge
has not undermined facts supporting the BIA’s determination that
he could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of Haiti.
See Mazariegos, 241 F.3d at 1327-28 (upholding denial of asylum
relief where facts supported BIA determination that applicant did
not face “a threat of persecution country-wide”). We affirm the
BIA’s decision denying asylum relief and denying withholding of
removal.2
PETITION DENIED.
2
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Clerge did not establish
asylum eligibility: he offers no reason why he has met the higher standard for showing that
the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal was in error. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2001).
7