[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-13626
MARCH 7, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A095-903-513
AURELIO GOMEZ-BETANCUR,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPetitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 7, 2012)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aurelio Gomez-Betancur, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum.1 He argues the BIA and IJ erred
by determining he did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution and could
reasonably relocate within Colombia. After review, we deny Gomez-Betancur’s
petition.2
The IJ concluded Gomez-Betancur was a member of a particular social
group, namely, landowning cattle ranchers. However, the IJ and the BIA
determined he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution by the National
Liberation Army (ELN) on account of this status. On appeal, Gomez-Betancur
contends this determination was error because he has an objective basis for a well-
1
Because Gomez-Betancur failed to raise his withholding of removal and CAT claims
before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2006). Moreover, he has also abandoned them on appeal by
failing to mention either issue in his initial brief. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1145
(11th Cir. 2010). Thus, we consider only his asylum claim.
2
Where the BIA “affirmed and relied upon the IJ’s decision and reasoning,” we review
the IJ’s opinion “to the extent that the BIA found that the IJ’s reasons were supported by the
record.” Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the IJ’s and
the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence test. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). “[T]o conclude the BIA’s decision should be reversed, we
must find that the record not only supports the conclusion, but compels it.” Ruiz v. Gonzalez,
479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).
2
founded fear of future persecution on account of his status as a landowning cattle
rancher.3
An alien who cannot demonstrate past persecution may establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution by proving “(1) a ‘subjectively genuine and
objectively reasonable’ fear of persecution that is (2) on account of a protected
ground.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). An alien’s credible testimony generally establishes that his fear is
“genuine.” De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2008).
An asylum petitioner must also establish a nexus between the feared persecution
and the protected ground by presenting “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. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.
2005).4
The BIA and IJ did not err in determining that Gomez-Betancur was
ineligible for asylum. While his fear was presumed genuine because the IJ
3
Gomez-Betancur does not challenge the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that he did not suffer
past persecution.
4
The asylum applicant need not show he will be singled out if he establishes a “pattern
or practice” of persecuting similarly situated people in his country, and has a reasonable fear of
persecution based on inclusion in that group. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii). Gomez-Betancur
does not raise this issue before the BIA, nor did he raise it on appeal to this Court.
3
determined that he testified credibly, De Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1007, substantial
evidence supported the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that there was no indication the
ELN could currently identify him or would seek him out. The calls from the ELN
stopped in 2007, two years before the hearings. Moreover, his wife, daughters,
parents, and brothers had safely remained in the same area of Colombia, and to his
knowledge, none faced any harm. These factors demonstrate that Gomez-
Betancur’s fear was not objectively reasonable, and the record does not compel
reversal of the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution. Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236. Accordingly, we need not address
whether relocation was a reasonable option for Gomez-Betancur.
PETITION DENIED.
4