Sandra Patricia Bedoya v. U.S. Attorney General , 344 F. App'x 574 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sept. 17, 2009
No. 08-16909 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A075-842-610
SANDRA P. BEDOYA,
a.k.a. Bedoya,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(September 17, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Bedoya, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the denial of her
applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA
§ 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The Board found that
Bedoya failed to establish past persecution, a probability of future persecution if
she returns to Colombia, or that she was eligible for withholding of removal. We
deny the petition.
Bedoya presents two arguments, and we lack jurisdiction to consider one of
those arguments. Bedoya argues that she was eligible for asylum because she
submitted evidence that paramilitaries persecuted her, in part, because they
believed that she associated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
Bedoya also argues that she was eligible for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention, but she failed to present those arguments to the Board.
“[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction to consider claims
that have not been raised before the [Board].’” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Bedoya failed to establish that
she suffered past persecution or faces future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th Cir. 2004). The
2
record supports the finding of the Board that Bedoya was a victim of extortion.
Bedoya testified that paramilitaries approached her and other persons in the
neighborhood who had “good jobs or businesses to extort money from them,” and
she was attacked “because [she] refused to give them what they wanted which was
the money.” Although Bedoya testified that the paramilitaries believed she had
cooperated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the record does not compel a
finding that Bedoya was targeted for that cooperation. Bedoya testified that the
paramilitaries asked her why, if she assisted the Revolutionary Armed Forces,
would she “not give the money to [the paramilitaries] to[o].” Bedoya also failed to
establish she has a well-founded fear of future persecution because her family has
remained in Colombia unharmed and her mother has returned to Bedoya’s
neighborhood. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006).
Bedoya’s petition for review is DENIED.
3