[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
-------------------------------------------U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-15495 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 10, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
-------------------------------------------- THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
BIA No. A77-890-824
JEAN CERISE FAUSTIN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
(July 10, 2006)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jean Cerise Faustin, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the
affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the decision of the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman,
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). No reversible error has been
shown; we deny the petition.
We review the IJ’s decision in this case, not the BIA’s, because the
BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion. See Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney
Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003). An IJ’s factual determination that
an alien is not entitled to asylum “must be upheld if it is supported by substantial
evidence.” Mazariegos v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir.
2001). “Under this highly deferential test, we affirm the IJ’s decision if it is
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Forgue v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and alteration omitted). “To reverse the IJ’s fact
findings, we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.”
Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287.
An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee”: a person unable or
unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including
political opinion and membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. §§
2
1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). We have explained that “persecution is an
extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal
harassment or intimidation, and . . . mere harassment does not amount to
persecution.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation omitted). The asylum applicant bears the burden of
proving statutory “refugee” status with specific and credible evidence. Al Najjar
v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
An alien who seeks withholding of removal must demonstrate that his life or
freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of a protected
ground. Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. The alien must show that he
“more-likely-than-not would be persecuted or tortured upon his return” to his
country. Id. If an alien is unable to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, he
necessarily has failed to meet the higher burden of proof required for withholding
of removal. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93.
Faustin claimed that, in February 1999, he joined a group called
Mobilization for National Development (“MDN”), which advocated improvements
for Haiti’s schools and hospitals and supported projects to expand the availability
of electricity in that country. Faustin testified that the political Lavalas Party
opposed the MDN, and during a MDN meeting in May 1999, members of the
3
Lavalas Party and the police beat and arrested the MDN members at the meeting
because they had not received permission from the Lavalas Party to hold the
meeting. Faustin asserted that he was hit with sticks and the butt of a gun, but he
acknowledged that, aside from experiencing some pain, he was not injured. He
remained in jail for one day and was released. Shortly before Faustin was
released, a police official warned him that, if Faustin returned to his house, he
would be killed. Faustin went into hiding for approximately 30 days and then left
Haiti for the United States.
Faustin argues that the IJ erred in concluding that he did not suffer past
persecution in Haiti based on his involvement with the MDN. Substantial
evidence supports the determination that Faustin failed to meet his burden that he
had been persecuted on account of any protected ground. Faustin’s claims that he
was beaten -- but not injured -- by persons opposing the MDN, that he was jailed
for one day, and that he received an isolated threat before his release from jail do
not rise to the level of past persecution that compels reversal of the IJ’s
determination.
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Faustin failed to
show a well-founded fear of future persecution. As we have discussed, the past
acts of the Lavalas Party and the police against Faustin did not constitute
4
persecution. In addition, Faustin has been away from Haiti for seven years; and he
has not shown that, upon his return, he would be “singled out” for persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231-32. Therefore,
the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Faustin is eligible for asylum.
Because he has failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, Faustin also
has failed to meet the higher burden of proof required for withholding of removal.
See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93.
Faustin also claims that the IJ erred in not finding him eligible for CAT
relief because he was tortured as a result of his participation in the May 1999
MDN meeting. We have explained that, to be eligible for CAT protection, “an
applicant must show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured in her
home country at the hands of her government or that her government will
acquiesce in the torture.” Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th
Cir. 2004). Faustin has failed to present evidence that meets this burden.
Based on the foregoing, we deny the petition for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.
5