Hector Ramon Riquel v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14842 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 13, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A98-702-129, A98-702-130
HECTOR RAMON RIQUEL,
MERCEDES BEATRIZ BODU-LEPAGE,
JAVIER ALFONSO RIQUEL-BODU,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 13, 2009)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hector Riquel and his family, natives and citizens of Venezuela, petition this
Court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to deny their
application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The Board ruled that Riquel’s petition
was untimely and that his allegations of persecution were not sufficiently detailed
or corroborated to warrant relief. We deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Riquel, his wife, Mercedes Bodu-Lepage, and their two sons, Javier Alfonso
Riquel-Bodu and Hector Andres Riquel-Bodu, were admitted to the United States
in 2000 as nonimmigrant visitors. In December 2004, Riquel, on behalf of himself,
his wife, and their sons, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture and sought relief based on his
political opinion. Riquel alleged that he had been threatened and imprisoned based
on his opposition to President Hugo Chavez and he was known in Venezuela
because he wrote a letter to Chavez and asked him to resign. Riquel asserted that
he would be persecuted or assassinated if he returned to Venezuela.
Riquel testified that he participated in an organization called Democratic
Action that opposed the Chavez regime. In 1998, uniformed commanders of the
Bolivarian Circles, a pro-Chavez organization, approached Riquel and questioned
his political activities. The officers told Riquel that they would follow him if he
continued to oppose Chavez. Later, individuals whom Riquel was unable to
2
identify threw rocks at his house. Riquel’s relatives and friends received telephone
calls from anonymous individuals who stated that they would follow Riquel so
long as he worked for Democratic Action.
In 1999, as Riquel drove away from a clandestine meeting of Democratic
Action, he was followed by another car. An occupant of the other vehicle told
Riquel to stop; Riquel instead accelerated and shots were fired at his car. Riquel
could not identify the occupants of the vehicle, but he “suppose[d] they might be
from the commanders of Chavez.”
Riquel testified on cross-examination that his mother and mother-in-law still
lived in Venezuela. He asserted that Chavez received the letter requesting his
resignation because a friend delivered it to Chavez’s secretary. Riquel testified
that he had continued to oppose the Chavez regime while in the United States by
collecting signatures for the Venezuelan Society of Orlando.
The immigration judge denied Riquel’s application. The immigration judge
found that Riquel had waived his request for asylum. The judge ruled that Riquel
failed to provide detailed information to establish that he would be persecuted if he
returned to Venezuela and he failed to corroborate his allegations of past
persecution.
The Board dismissed Riquel’s appeal. The Board ruled that Riquel’s
application for asylum was untimely. The Board “adopt[ed] and affirm[ed]” the
3
conclusions of the immigration judge that Riquel’s allegations of persecution were
not sufficiently detailed or corroborated to find that Riquel was entitled to
withholding of removal or relief under the Convention.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it is “supported
by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “To reverse
[those] fact findings, we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but
compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
We review the legal conclusions of the Board de novo. Id. at 1287 n.6. When the
Board adopts the findings of the immigration judge, we review the decision of the
immigration judge. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284.
III. DISCUSSION
Riquel and his family challenge the denial of their petition for withholding
of removal. The family does not challenge the finding that their application for
asylum was untimely, which we lack jurisdiction to review. Mendoza, 327 F.3d at
1287. Because only a petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal
remains and the governing regulation does not provide for derivative benefits, we
deny the petition for Riquel’s wife and son. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c); Delgado v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
4
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Riquel did not have a well-
founded fear of future prosecution because he failed to establish that he suffered
past persecution and he offered no proof that he would be singled out due to his
political beliefs if he returned to Venezuela. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1);
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
The statements by the Bolivarian Circles and the anonymous telephone calls
threatening to follow Riquel do not rise to the level of persecution. See Silva v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1238 (11th Cir. 2006). Riquel did not see the
gunman or the individuals who pelted his home with rocks or present evidence that
their attacks were politically motivated, and no harm resulted from either incident.
See id. at 1234, 1238; Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. The record also does not
compel a finding that Riquel will be targeted for the letter that he wrote to
President Chavez because he left family members in Venezuela who have not been
threatened or harmed. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir.
2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We DENY Riquel’s petition for review.
5