Antonio Francisco Corrales v. U.S. Atty. General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-13635 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 3, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A094-882-731
ANTONIO FRANCISCO CORRALES,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 3, 2010)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Francisco Corrales, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his
application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231;
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Corrales argues that the Board failed to consider all the
evidence he introduced about his past persecution. We deny Corrales’s petition in
part, but we grant Corrales’s petition in part, vacate in part the decision of the
Board, and remand for further proceedings.
Corrales presents three arguments in his petition, and we lack jurisdiction to
consider one of those arguments. Corrales challenges the findings of the
immigration judge that Corrales was not credible, but “[w]e review only the
Board’s decision,” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
The Board assumed that Corrales was credible.
Corrales argues that he fears future persecution when he returns to
Venezuela, but substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that
Corrales’s alleged fear is not well-founded. Corrales testified that he was
threatened by supporters of Hugo Chavez once in October 2002 and four times in
December 2002, but he returned to Venezuela after traveling to the United States in
December 2003 and June 2004. Corrales also testified that in August 2004 he
2
learned that he had been blacklisted by the Venezuelan government, yet Corrales
returned to Venezuela after a trip to the United States in December 2004. Corrales
testified about a meeting in October 2005 at which he signed a document in “fear[]
for [his] life,” but on cross-examination Corrales conceded that he remained in
Venezuela without incident until he left the country two months later. Although
Corrales alleged in his application that on December 8, 2005, he decided to flee
Venezuela to save his life, Corrales later testified that he visited the United States
in December 2005 to spend Christmas with his family and then he decided to stay.
Corrales acknowledged that his wife, who also is blacklisted, resides in Venezuela
unharmed, and his daughter has traveled periodically to Venezuela without
incident. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006).
Corrales argues that he suffered threats and harassment so severe as to
constitute past persecution, but again substantial evidence supports a contrary
finding by the Board. According to Corrales, he was threatened on three occasions
by a public official and members of the Bolivarian Circles and was twice
threatened by an anonymous caller because he opposed the regime of Hugo
Chavez, but these incidents constituted harassment, not persecution. See
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). Corrales
alleged that his intimidators once displayed weapons and on another occasion
pelted him with rocks and sticks, but Corrales was never physically harmed during
3
those incidents of harassment. See Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1238
(11th Cir. 2006). Corrales also complained about his detention for more than eight
hours at a meeting in October 2005 presumably convened to resolve problems with
residents in a community that his company had constructed. That meeting was
attended by government officials and a group of Chavistas who verbally threatened
him and Corrales was required to sign a form agreeing to repair construction
defects. The threats that Corrales allegedly suffered during this incident too were
not sufficiently severe to constitute persecution. See Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008); Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287,
1289–92 (11th Cir. 2006).
Corrales also argues that he suffered past persecution based on economic
harm inflicted by the Venezuelan government, but the Board failed to make a
finding about Corrales’s alleged economic injuries. The Board has “stated that
persecution ‘could consist of economic deprivation or restrictions so severe that
they constitute a threat to an individual’s life or freedom.’” In re T-Z, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 163, 170 (BIA 2007) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222
(BIA 1985)). Corrales presented evidence that he suffered economic harm:
Corrales introduced evidence that he was placed on the Tascon list, which he
alleged was used to deny citizens credit, access to public buildings, government
jobs, and payment for contracts, and Corrales testified that, as a result of being
4
placed on the Tascon list, the government rescinded and stopped payment on its
contracts with Corrales. We remand for the Board to consider whether Corrales
proved that he suffered economic deprivations so severe as to constitute
persecution.
We DENY Corrales’s petition about his alleged fear of future persecution
and his alleged past persecution involving incidents of threats and harassment, but
we GRANT Corrales’s petition about his alleged past economic persecution,
VACATE the decision of the Board to deny Corrales’s petition on that ground, and
REMAND for further proceedings.
PETITION DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, VACATED in part,
and REMANDED.
5