[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________
.U .S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-12393
DECEMBER 22, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
BIA No. A96-283-826
CAROLINA CARVAJAL-CASTANO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 22, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carolina Carvajal-Castano petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA’s) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her
application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1), 1231(b)(3).1 Carvajal-Castano, a
member of the Conservative Party, the Association of Artisans of Candio, and the
Local Administrative Meetings, asserts her political activities caused her to be
persecuted and threatened by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC). Carvajal-Castano contends neither the BIA nor the IJ placed sufficient
weight on all of the encounters she had with FARC, which fell within the
definition of past persecution.2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision,
and we deny the petition.
To the extent the BIA’s decision is based on a legal determination, review is
de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2001).
Factual determinations, however, are reviewed under the “highly deferential
substantial evidence test,” which requires us to “view the record evidence in the
light most favorable to the [BIA’s] decision and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir.
1
Castano does not challenge the BIA’s denial of relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture. Thus, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
Here, the BIA disagreed with the IJ’s reasoning and gave its own explanation for why relief
should be denied. Accordingly, we review only the BIA’s decision, and the IJ’s findings regarding
Castano’s lack of a political opinion are irrelevant to this appeal. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding “[w]e review only the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent
that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion”).
2
2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2245 (2005). Findings of fact may be
reversed only when the record compels the opposite conclusion. Silva v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006).
A petitioner can establish asylum based on past persecution if she can
demonstrate she was persecuted and the persecution resulted from a protected
ground. Id. In establishing eligibility for asylum based on a well-founded fear of
future persecution, she must demonstrate both a “subjectively genuine and
objectively reasonable fear of persecution,” resulting from a protected ground. Id.
Here, the BIA denied asylum because there was insufficient evidence
Carvajal-Castano experienced persecution or had a well-founded fear of future
persecution. The evidence does not compel a finding Carvajal-Castano was
persecuted, as her testimony was that she had been threatened, mostly by
telephone, and recounted no physical contact except being pushed against a wall.
“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents
of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (11th Cir.
2005) (quotations and citation omitted). “[M]enacing telephone calls and threats
. . . do not rise to the level of past persecution that would compel reversal of the IJ's
decision.” Id. Thus, the incidents about which Carvajal-Castano testified do not
rise to the level of past persecution.
3
Additionally, in a case where the petitioner had been subject to menacing
telephone calls and threats, we noted the petitioner’s “notoriety” would not outlast
a four-year absence, making her fear of future persecution objectively
unreasonable. Id. at 1232. Similarly here, there is no evidence the FARC would
still be interested in Carvajal-Castano three years later. Thus, the evidence does
not compel a finding Carvajal-Castano has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
Withholding of removal may be granted if the alien can establish that, if
returned to his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). “‘Where an applicant is unable to meet the
‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, [she] is generally precluded from
qualifying for either asylum or withholding of [removal].’” Silva, 448 F.3d at
1243. As Carvajal-Castano failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she also failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
4