[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16015 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 3, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A097-923-471,
A097-923-472
ALBERTO EDUARDO VALDERRAMA,
JANIS GABRIELA PEREZ-GARCIA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 3, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Eduardo Valderrama,1 a native and citizen of Venezuela represented
by counsel, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ denied Valderrama’s application because he
found that Valderrama had not suffered past persecution and did not have a well-
founded fear of future persecution if returned to Venezuela.
In his petition, Valderrama primarily argues that the IJ misapplied the law
because two BIA cases that the IJ cited are factually distinguishable from this case.
Valderrama also argues that: (1) the IJ failed to properly consider the U.S.
Department of State Country Report on Venezuela; (2) the IJ gave disproportionate
weight to his frequent travel from Venezuela to the United States; and (3) he is
eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the background evidence
shows that a Venezuelan group known as the Bolivarian Circles persecutes people
who are similarly situated to him.
Where, as here, “the BIA adopts the decision of the Immigration Judge
without opinion, we review the decision of the Immigration Judge.” Tan v. U.S.
Att’y. Gen. 446 F.3d 1369, 1373 (11th Cir. 2006). Factual findings are reviewed
1
This petition also includes Valderrama’s wife: Janice Gabriella Perez Garcia.
Valderrama is the lead petitioner; Garcia is a derivative beneficiary. In this opinion, we refer
only to Valderrama.
2
under the substantial evidence test. The BIA’s decision is due to be affirmed if is
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a
whole. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The
BIA’s “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.” Zheng v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 451 F.3d 1287,
1290 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in the original).
The Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security has the
discretion to grant asylum to an applicant if he is outside of his country of
nationality and “is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to
avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 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.” Zheng, 451 F.3d at
1290 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish asylum eligibility, an
applicant “must, with specific and credible evidence, show (1) past persecution on
account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a ‘well-founded fear’ that the statutorily
listed factor will cause future persecution.” Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1290.
An applicant who cannot demonstrate past persecution still can obtain
asylum if he shows that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. De
Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 8
3
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)). To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the
applicant must demonstrate that he has: “(1) a subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable fear of persecution that is (2) on account of a protected ground.” De
Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1007. The subjective prong is satisfied “by the applicant's
credible testimony that he or she genuinely fears persecution,” and the objective
prong is satisfied if the applicant establishes that he “has a good reason to fear
future persecution.” Id..
Persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. We
have held that a single beating did not constitute past persecution or give rise to a
well-founded fear of future persecution because the applicant only suffered minor
injuries, in the form of bruising, from that beating. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y. Gen.,
514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008). Likewise, threats alone do not give rise to a
persecution-based claim for relief. Silva v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1237-
39 (11th Cir. 2006). In addition, an applicant’s fear of future persecution is
significantly undermined if, at the time of his asylum application, his family
members still were alive and unharmed in his country of origin. Ruiz v. U.S.
Att’y. Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006). If the applicant cannot
establish asylum eligibility, then that he is likewise ineligible for withholding of
removal. Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292.
4
As an initial matter, we note that Valderrama’s brief does not set forth an
argument concerning CAT relief. Therefore, he has abandoned his claim for such
relief. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. Turning to asylum and withholding
of removal, Valderrama has not established either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution because, as described in his testimony,
apart from alleged vandalism to his car, the only incidents of mistreatment he
suffered were: (1) a single beating which resulted in external bruising; (2) a single
incident of rocks thrown at his house; and (3) a number of threats being made
against him. Under our case law, these incidents do not constitute past persecution,
and they do not give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Valderrama's claim of future persecution is further undermined by the fact that his
family has remained in Venezuela without problems or harm. Substantial evidence
therefore supports the IJ’s determination that Valderrama failed to meet his burden
of showing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
PETITION DENIED.
5