[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-11134 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 3, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A088-147-267
ORLANDO LINARES GONZALEZ-DIAZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(November 3, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The petitioner, Orlando Linares Gonzalez-Diaz, is a native and citizen of
Guatemala. He entered the United States in September 2002 without authorization.
In January 2007, he filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal
under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”); he asserted that he had been persecuted in
Guatemala on account of his political opinion. He subsequently amended his
application to claim that he also had been persecuted on account of his membership
in a particular group.
On October 16, 2007, petitioner appeared before an Immigration Judge
(“IJ”), in response to a Notice to Appear issued by the Department of Homeland
Security, to show cause why he should not be removed as an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled. Petitioner conceded that he was
removable, and then presented his case for asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT relief. After considering his testimony and the documentary evidence
presented, the IJ found that petitioner was barred from asylum because his
application was untimely and he had not shown that the late filing was legally
excusable. Then, finding petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal or CAT
relief, the IJ ordered his removal.
Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”), and on February 5, 2009, it dismissed the appeal. He now petitions this
court for review.
2
In his brief, petitioner argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in denying his
application for asylum and withholding of removal because he suffered past
persecution and demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution on a
protected ground.1
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that 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, the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s
decision. We thus review the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision to the extent the
BIA adopted its reasoning. Id.
I.
We lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision that an asylum application is
untimely. Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner’s application was untimely because it was not filed within one year after
his arrival in the United States, INA § 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and
he failed to show to the BIA’s satisfaction that the untimeliness was excusable due
to changed or extraordinary circumstances, INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D). We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the instant petition
to the extent that it seeks review of the BIA’s asylum decision. We turn then to the
1
Petitioner’s brief does not challenge the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. We therefore
dismiss the petition for review to the extent that it seeks review of the denial of such relief. See
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
issue we have jurisdiction to consider, whether petitioner is entitled to withholding
of removal.
II.
To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must show
that, if returned to his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on account
of 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). “An alien bears the
burden of demonstrating that he more-likely-than-not would be persecuted or
tortured upon his return to the country in question.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). The alien can meet this burden by showing
either (1) past persecution in his country based on a protected ground, in which
case a rebuttable presumption is created that his life or freedom would be
threatened if he returned to his country; or (2) “a future threat to his life or freedom
on a protected ground in his country.” Id.
Although the INA does not expressly define “persecution,” we have said
that “persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,” and “[m]ere harassment does not
amount to persecution.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (quotations and citation
omitted) (alteration in original). Resistance to forced recruitment does not, by
itself, establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
4
account of political opinion. INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83,
112 S.Ct. 812, 815-16, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because a person might refuse to
join a guerilla group for reasons other than that person’s political opinion, the alien
must provide at least some evidence that the guerillas persecuted him on account of
a political opinion. Id. at 482-83, 112 S.Ct. at 815-818. Evidence of acts of
private violence or the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with guerillas “does not
constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.” Ruiz
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006). Additionally, evidence
of extortion, by itself, does not constitute evidence of persecution on a statutorily
protected ground. Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 815, 821-22 (11th Cir.
2007). The fact that a petitioner has close family living unharmed in the region of
the home country to which the petitioner fears returning contradicts a claim of a
well-founded fear of persecution. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1258-59.
At the hearing before the IJ, petitioner failed to establish a nexus between
the persecution he portrayed—that he and his family were subjected to attacks by
guerillas because of his father’s membership in the Civil Patrol—and his or his
family’s own political opinion. He also failed to establish past persecution on
account of any other protected ground. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for
withholding of removal because (1) his claim of future persecution rested entirely
on his assertion that he had been persecuted in the past, a fact that he failed to
5
prove, and (2) his children, parents and siblings remain in Guatemala unharmed.
The record fully supports the BIA’s finding; hence, we affirm its decision denying
petitioner withholding of removal.
PETITION DISMISSED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
6