Ussiel A. Hernandez v. US Attorney General ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14299 Date Filed: 05/23/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14299
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A074-790-708
USSIEL A. HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 23, 2013)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14299 Date Filed: 05/23/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Ussiel Hernandez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Hernandez
asylum and withholding of removal.
We review only the decision of the BIA, “except to the extent that the BIA
has expressly adopted the IJ’s decision.” Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765
(11th Cir. 2007). Where the BIA explicitly agrees with particular findings of the
IJ, we review both the BIA and the IJ’s conclusions regarding those issues. Ayala
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). We review a factual
determination by the BIA that an alien is statutorily ineligible for asylum or
withholding under the highly deferential substantial evidence test. Al Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2001). To qualify for asylum, an
alien must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution because of
his political opinion or on other protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440
F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Hernandez was a local elected official in Mexico. He claims that he was
targeted with death threats by members of a rival political party after his term in
office ended. He supports his petition with evidence, including testimony by two
witnesses, of violence between his party and the rival party.
After review of the briefs and the record, we find that there is substantial
evidence in support of the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez is ineligible for
2
Case: 12-14299 Date Filed: 05/23/2013 Page: 3 of 3
asylum. The IJ offered specific and cogent reasons for its adverse credibility
determination, and Hernandez presented no evidence actually documenting the
alleged threats.
The BIA’s alternative finding that Hernandez did not establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is also supported by
substantial evidence. As the BIA stated, Hernandez
was never harmed, or even directly confronted, by his alleged
persecutors. After living in the United States for fifteen years, he did
not demonstrate that the [rival] party members in his hometown would
continue to care about his whereabouts or be awaiting his return.
[Hernandez] also did not adequately explain why he could not relocate
upon removal.
Further, the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez’s testimony was implausible
in certain respects, including his explanation for his failure to contact the police
about the alleged threats and why he received no threats until well after he left
office, is supported by the record. Therefore, Hernandez is not entitled to asylum.
Finally, because Hernandez is not entitled to asylum, he cannot qualify for
withholding of removal, which has a more stringent standard for eligibility. Rivera
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 815, 820–21 (11th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny Hernandez’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
3