The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-12900 JANUARY 11, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A088-685-617
MARIELA RODRIGUEZ-MONTENEGRO,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 11, 2012)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mariela Rodriguez-Montenegro, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Rodriguez-Montenegro entered the United States on June 24, 2007, with a
visitor visa that authorized her to remain here until July 23, 2007. On July 24,
2007, she filed an application for asylum. The IJ denied the application. The BIA
affirmed, adopting the IJ’s finding that the harms Rodriguez-Montenegro suffered
did not rise to the level of persecution. Rodriguez-Montenegro now appeals the
BIA’s decision.
On appeal, Rodriguez-Montenegro argues that the IJ and BIA erred by
failing to find past persecution, by failing to find a nexus between that persecution
and her political opinions, and by failing to find a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA has
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th
Cir. 2007). When the BIA adopts the findings of the IJ, we review the decision of
both the BIA and the IJ for those issues. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941,
947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). For factual determinations, we will affirm the BIA’s
2
decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004).
In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant must establish past persecution,
or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a statutorily
enumerated factor. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b); see also 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). In
determining whether an alien has suffered past persecution, the fact-finder must
consider the cumulative effects of the alleged incidents. Delgado v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 861 (11th Cir. 2007). However, “persecution is an extreme
concept, requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or
intimidation . . . .” Selpulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.
2005).
This Court has established a high bar for holding that the BIA lacked
substantial evidence to support its finding of no past persecution. For example, in
Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2007), this Court vacated
the BIA’s finding of no past persecution where the petitioner received death
threats, and was attacked on multiple occasions, once suffering a broken nose that
required surgery. In Ruiz, this Court vacated the BIA’s finding of no past
persecution where the petitioner was kidnapped for eighteen days and his
colleague was killed. 479 F.3d at 766.
3
Here Rodriguez-Montenegro, a former school teacher, urges that she
suffered persecution, because FARC members tried to force her to stop teaching
about democracy, and pressed her to use her teaching position to help FARC
recruit new members. In particular, she draws this Court’s attention to the
numerous threats made against her by FARC members, which included
intermittent verbal threats from 1982 to 2006, and eight threatening phone calls
over a two-month period in the spring of 2007. The most serious incident
occurred in May 2007, when four FARC members surrounded her house. Two of
the assailants invaded her home, tying up Rodriguez-Montenegro and her husband
and threatening them with guns. When her husband attempted to intervene, the
captors hit him in the head with a gun, but Rodriguez-Montenegro described his
injury as “not a major thing.” The FARC captors told Rodriguez-Montenegro that
she had to collaborate with them. After about half an hour, the captors left, and
Rodriguez-Montenegro and her husband managed to untie themselves.
Rodriguez-Montenegro also received two death threats, once in the form of a
sympathy letter in April 2007, and once as a condolence card in June 2007. She
left Colombia in June 2007. Since her departure, FARC members have gone to
her home and the places she used to frequent, inquiring as to her whereabouts.
Despite Rodriguez-Montenegro’s undoubtedly troubling experiences,
4
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that the harm she suffered did not
amount to persecution. Under this Circuit’s precedent, “[t]he record does not
compel the conclusion that [she] suffered past persecution.” Djonda v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008).
Rodriguez-Montenegro also argues that she has a well-founded fear of
future persecution. To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the
applicant must show that there is a reasonable possibility of suffering persecution
upon return to her home country. Mejia, 498 F.3d at 1256. Substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s finding that a reasonable fear was not established. In particular,
Rodiguez-Montenegro experienced few dangerous encounters with the FARC
from 1982 to 2007, the period of alleged persecution. Also her husband and two
sons, who returned to Colombia in 2007, have neither suffered harm, nor been
threatened by the FARC.1
Finally, Rodriguez-Montenegro argues that there is a pattern or practice in
Colombia of persecuting persons similarly situated to her, thus satisfying the
requirement for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, she failed to
1
Although it does not change our holding, we note that substantial evidence does not
support the IJ’s finding that FARC would not be interested in Rodriguez-Montenegro because
she is no longer a school teacher. She has not been a school teacher since 2004. Nevertheless,
the FARC clearly remained interested in Rodriguez-Montenegro in May 2007 when they invaded
her house and demanded her collaboration at gunpoint.
5
raise this claim in her BIA proceedings.2 Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider this claim. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247,
1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs of the parties, we
deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
2
In her brief to the BIA, Rodriguez-Montenegro’s attorney referred to "individuals such
as the Respondent." But her attorney neither referred to a "pattern or practice" of persecution,
nor to § 208.13(b)(2)(iii) directly. Furthermore, Rodriguez-Montenegro was and is not
proceeding pro se, so we do not construe her briefs liberally. Cf. Lorisme v. INS, 129 F.3d 1441,
1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997) ("We read liberally briefs filed pro se.")
6