[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 9, 2007
No. 06-13499 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A97-925-671
A97-925-672
ORLANDO CASTELLANOS,
CARMENZA GABY CASTELLANOS,
DAVID ALEJANDRO PENA-OROZCO,
DIEGO FERNANDO CASTELLANOS,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(February 9, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Castellanos, on behalf of himself, his wife, Carmenza Gaby
Castellanos, and their two sons, David Alejandro Pena Orozco and Diego Fernando
Castellanos, all citizens of Venezuela, petitions for review of the order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the decision of an Immigration Judge
to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals denied
Castellanos’s application because it concluded that he had not suffered past
persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if he
returned to Venezuela because relocation was possible. Because substantial
evidence supports the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, we deny the
petition.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2004, Castellanos and his family were served with notices to
appear for having remained in the United States for a period longer than
authorized. On October 22, 2004, Castellanos and his family appeared before an
Immigration Judge, admitted the allegations in the notices to appear and conceded
removability. Castellanos requested asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
2
Castellanos was the only witness at the hearing before the Immigration
Judge. Castellanos testified that he was born in Venezuela and had last entered the
United States on August 18, 2003. He testified that he had come to the United
States to seek asylum because he had been persecuted in Venezuela on account of
his political opinion. In support of his claim for asylum, Castellanos testified that
he was a businessman involved in international trade and he openly opposed the
regime of Hugo Chavez. Castellanos testified that as a result of his participation in
marches, strikes, and meetings in opposition to the Chavez government, he was
persecuted by members of the Bolivarian Circles, which Castellanos testified were
pro-Chavez organizations.
The alleged persecution about which Castellanos testified consisted of three
incidents. First, during a national strike in which Castellanos participated that
began in December 2002 and lasted for 63 days, Castellanos received threatening
telephone calls from members of the Bolivarian Circles who stated that Castellanos
would have to change his political ways or face the consequences. Castellanos
testified that he received these calls almost daily during December and that he
understood the consequences to be death. Second, on January 8, 2003, Castellanos
testified that his business was vandalized by members of the Bolivarian Circles.
The vandals attempted to force Castellanos to open the business during the strike,
called Castellanos a traitor, and referred to him by name. The vandals did not
3
physically harm Castellanos because his neighbors intervened. Third, Castellanos
testified that, on August 10, 2003, he was intercepted on his way home from the
office by three armed members of the Bolivarian Circles. He was forced to exit his
car, was beaten, and was warned to cease his activities or he would be killed. On
each occasion, Castellanos’s harassers threatened that Castellanos’s family would
also pay the consequences. Although Castellanos reported the incidents to the
authorities, no action was taken. He came to the United States eight days after the
August 10, 2003, beating.
The Immigration Judge denied the application for relief. The Immigration
Judge specifically found that Castellanos had not suffered persecution in the past
and did not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Venezuela.
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision of the
Immigration Judge. In a separate opinion, the Board concluded that Castellanos
had not suffered past persecution and had not established that he could not relocate
within Venezuela.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review only the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, 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 Board
adopts the reasoning of the Immigration Judge, we also review that decision. See
4
Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75 F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996). We review factual
determinations under the substantial evidence test. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005). We must affirm the decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals 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 [Board]’s decision can be reversed only if the evidence
‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Id. (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Castellanos makes two arguments on appeal. He argues first that he
established past persecution on account of a protected ground. He argues second
that he established a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Venezuela.
Each argument fails.
“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Id. at 1231 (quotation omitted).
“[M]ere harassment does not amount to persecution.” Id. The Board of
Immigration Appeals concluded that the incidents of which Castellanos
complained did not rise to the level of persecution. To grant Castellanos’s petition
on the ground that he established past persecution, we must conclude that the
evidence compels the opposite conclusion. See id. at 1230.
5
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the Board of Immigration
Appeals that Castellanos did not suffer past persecution. The threatening telephone
calls and vandalism to Castellanos’s business do not amount to more than
harassment. Castellanos was not injured, and he admitted that “the events were not
that bad.” Although Castellanos suffered a physical attack and injury, the record
does not compel the conclusion that this attack amounted to persecution.
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals
that this one incident of abuse was not so severe that it required medical attention.
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion of the Board of
Immigration Appeals that Castellanos did not have an objectively reasonable fear
of future persecution because Castellanos could relocate to another part of
Venezuela. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2). Castellanos asserts that he would be
persecuted wherever he resided in Venezuela, but there is substantial evidence to
the contrary. The record contains evidence that the Bolivarian Circles, which
Castellanos alleges were responsible for his mistreatment, are small, autonomous
groups who would not have the desire or capability of coordinating efforts to track
him throughout Venezuela.
Although the record contains evidence of some national promotion of the
Bolivarian Circles through a toll-free number established to disseminate
information on forming new groups and an Assistant National Coordinator, the
6
evidence does not compel the conclusion that anyone exercises central control of
the Bolivarian Circles. Each Circle is a grassroots organization with typically
seven to eleven members led by First and Second Coordinators. There were more
than 7000 Circles in 2001. There is even substantial evidence that most Bolivarian
Circles are engaged primarily in humanitarian work. The record contains evidence
that approximately 200 Bolivarian Circle leaders met on one occasion to rally in
support of President Chavez, but that evidence does not compel the conclusion that
Castellanos would be unable to relocate in Venezuela. Although the record
establishes that Castellanos was mistreated by several members of one or more
local Circles, the record does not establish that his “notoriety as an activist would
outlast” his lengthy absence from Venezuela such that he would be singled out for
persecution wherever he relocated. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1232.
Castellanos’s claims for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture also fail. Because Castellanos did not “meet the
‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, it is a fortiori that he cannot meet the
withholding of removal standard.” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814,
819 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Likewise, Castellanos did not establish
that it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if he were returned to
Venezuela. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
PETITION DENIED.
7