Jose Fernando Palacios v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 16, 2008
No. 07-13276
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A95-237-495 & A95-237-496
JOSE FERNANDO PALACIOS,
CLARIVEL OSORIO,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 16, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Fernando Palacios and his wife, Clarivel Osorio, petition for review of
the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the denial of their
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Palacios argues the
Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) persecuted him in Colombia on account
of his political opinion. The government responds that Palacios has waived any
challenge to the finding by the Board that recent developments in Colombia have
established that Palacios’s alleged fear is no longer well-founded. We deny the
petition.
We review the decision of the Board because it did not expressly adopt the
opinion or reasoning of the Immigration Judge. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We review legal issues de novo. Mohammed v.
Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). Factual findings are reviewed
under the substantial evidence test. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283. Under that test, we
must deny relief if the decision of the Board is “supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. at
1284. “To reverse a factual finding by the [Board], [we] must find not only that the
evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but that it compels one.” Farquharson v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the findings of
the Board in the light most favorable to the government. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). A petitioner abandons an issue if he
fails to offer any argument about that issue in his initial brief. Sepulveda v. U.S.
2
Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
To establish eligibility for asylum, the alien must, with specific and credible
evidence, prove a “well-founded fear” of future persecution based on a protected
ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). If the petitioner proves past persecution, there is a
rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. §
208.13(b)(1). The government may rebut the presumption by proving that the
circumstances in the petitioner’s country have changed to the extent that the
petitioner no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. Antipova v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 392 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004). A failure to establish entitlement to
asylum necessarily means that the corresponding application for withholding of
removal fails. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).
In his initial brief, Palacios does not challenge the finding by the Board that,
because the AUC declared a cease fire in 2004 and demobilized in 2006, Palacios
no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution by that group. Palacios’s failure
to challenge that dispositive finding means that he has waived any argument
against the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We
deny Palacios’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
3