German Ceceres Becerra 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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 10-10272 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A099-920-659
GERMAN CECERES BECERRA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 29, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner German Ceceres Becerra petitions this court for review of the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). In his
petition, Becerra challenges the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish a
nexus between the harm he suffered in Colombia and his actual or imputed
political opinion for purposes of his eligibility for withholding of removal.
Becerra also argues that the IJ erred in its adverse-credibility finding.
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the
extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “When an appellant fails to offer argument on
an issue, that issue is abandoned.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,
1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, passing references to issues are insufficient
to raise a claim for appeal. Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570,
1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989).
As a threshold matter, Becerra has abandoned his asylum and CAT claims
by not raising those issues in his brief. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2.
Likewise, Becerra’s contention that the IJ erred in finding him not credible is
2
misplaced because the BIA did not rely on that ground in making its ruling.
Furthermore, Becerra’s assertion that the IJ failed to factor the 2006 U.S.
Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Colombia into
its decision was not raised before the BIA, and, therefore, is not properly
exhausted. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th
Cir. 2006) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised
before the BIA).
We review legal determinations of the BIA de novo, and review
“administrative fact findings under the highly deferential substantial evidence
test.” Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted). We must affirm the decision of the BIA if it is
“supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we do not engage in a de novo
review of the facts as found by the IJ, and we may not “reweigh the evidence from
scratch.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the substantial-evidence
test, we view the record “in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To reverse a factual finding by the
3
BIA, we must find that “the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the
record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the
administrative findings.” Id.To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must satisfy more stringent
standards than those for asylum eligibility, so “an alien unable to prove a ‘well-
founded fear’ of persecution based on a protected ground, as required for asylum
relief, necessarily fails to demonstrate a ‘clear probability of persecution,’ the
‘standard applicable to a claim for withholding of removal.’” Rodriguez Morales
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007). To be granted withholding
of removal under the INA, an alien “must show that his life or freedom would be
threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437
(11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicant must establish
a sufficient nexus between his political opinion or other protected ground and his
alleged persecution. Rodriguez Morales, 488 F.3d at 890. “It is not enough to
show that [the alien] was or will be persecuted or tortured due to [the alien’s]
refusal to cooperate with the guerrillas.” Sanchez, 392 F.3d at 438.
Persecution “on account of” a political opinion means persecution because
of the “victim’s political opinion, not the persecutor’s.” I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias,
4
502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S. Ct. 812, 816 (1992). The fact that the persecutor is
motivated by the persecutor’s political belief is “irrelevant” to the issue of whether
the victim was persecuted because of the victim’s own belief. Rodriguez Morales,
488 F.3d at 890. “An asylum applicant may prevail on a theory of ‘imputed
political opinion’ if he shows that the persecutor falsely attributed an opinion to
him, and then persecuted him, because of that mistaken belief about his views.” Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). When
seeking withholding of removal, 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.” Sanchez, 392 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The record here does not compel a finding that Becerra established a nexus
between his experiences in Colombia and his actual or imputed political opinion.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the BIA’s conclusion that
Becerra was not persecuted on account of his political opinion, but rather because
of criminal activity or his work as a clerk. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review.
PETITION DENIED.
5