[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16660 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 11, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A099-555-085
JORGE EDUARDO MENDIETA-ESCRUCERIA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 11, 2009)
Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Eduardo Mendieta Escruceria (“Mendieta”) petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision reversing the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order that granted him withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Mendieta, a citizen of Colombia,
claimed past persecution by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(“FARC”) based on his activities as a member of the Primero Colombia political
party distributing flyers and coordinating youth outreach efforts. After review, we
deny the petition for review.1
An alien seeking withholding of removal must show that his “life or freedom
would be threatened in that country because of [his] race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA
§ 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). In other words, the alien bears the
burden to show that it is “more likely than not” that he will be persecuted on
account of one of the five protected grounds if returned to his country. Mendoza v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (hyphens omitted). To
establish eligibility, the alien must show either that he suffered past persecution or
that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)-
1
Mendieta does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his requests for asylum or for relief
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture or the BIA’s conclusions regarding future
persecution in his request for withholding of removal. Thus, we do not address these claims
further. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
(2); Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287.2
Although the INA does not define persecution, this Court has stated that
“persecution is an extreme concept requiring more than a few isolated incidents of
verbal harassment or intimidation.” Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 766 (11th
Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). This Court has concluded that threats in
conjunction with a brief detention or a minor physical attack that did not result in
serious physical injury do not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Djonda v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) (36-hour detention, beating
and threat of arrest); Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir.
2006) (5-day detention).
Here, we cannot say the evidence compels a conclusion that Mendieta
suffered past persecution. During Mendieta’s six brief encounters with the FARC
over a two-month period, the FARC threatened and insulted him. In addition, in
two encounters, the FARC pushed Mendieta. In a third encounter, Mendieta was
kicked twice. During the final encounter, four FARC members carrying poles
chased Mendieta for several minutes. However, Mendieta never suffered any
2
“We review only the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the
IJ’s opinion.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, because the
BIA did not adopt the IJ’s opinion or his reasoning, we review only the BIA’s decision. We
review a factual determination that an alien is statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal
under the substantial evidence test. Id. at 1283-84. Under the substantial evidence standard, “we
must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza, 327 F.3d at
1287.
3
physical injury as a result of his brushes with the FARC.
This harassment falls short of the extreme mistreatment found in other cases
in which this Court has concluded that the record compelled a conclusion that the
petitioner was persecuted. See, e.g., De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d
999, 1008-10 (11th Cir. 2008) (involving repeated death threats, torture and
murder of petitioner’s groundskeeper, assault resulting in hospitalization,
kidnapping and beating with guns resulting in hospitalization); Niftaliev v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1211, 1215-17 (11th Cir. 2007) (involving threats, numerous
interrogations and beatings during a 15-day detention that resulted in two-month
hospitalization, and two subsequent physical attacks after petitioner fled to
Argentina); Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2007)
(involving written threats and “condolence” letter, assault with a rock and
detention at gunpoint, during which petitioner was thrown to the ground and hit
with a gun, breaking his nose and requiring surgery); Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1233 (11th Cir. 2007) (involving attempted murder of
petitioner, attempted kidnapping of his daughter, and death threats); Delgado v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2007) (involving threatening
phone calls, car vandalization, detention by masked men who pointed and mock
fired unloaded guns at petitioners, and a severe beating requiring medical
treatment).
4
Therefore, we cannot say the BIA erred in denying Mendieta’s claim for
withholding of removal.3
PETITION DENIED.
3
We reject Mendieta’s argument that the BIA did not give sufficient deference to the IJ’s
past persecution finding. The BIA reviews de novo “the application of legal standards [to
factual determinations], such as whether the facts established by an alien amount to past
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” In re A-S-B, 24 I. & N. Dec. 493, 496 (BIA
2008) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, the BIA was not required to defer to the IJ’s finding that
the mistreatment amounted to persecution.
5