Filed: Apr. 17, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: , George B. Henderson, II, Assistant United States Attorney, and, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, on brief for, respondent.1, In his brief, the petitioner is referred to as Builes so we, use that name in our opinion.future persecution if he is returned to Colombia must be upheld.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-1799
WILLIAM HERNAN BUILES-VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lipez, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Bowman,* Senior Circuit Judge.
Jose A. Espinosa on brief for petitioner.
George B. Henderson, II, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, on brief for
respondent.
April 17, 2006
*
Of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. William Hernan Builes-Vasquez (Builes)1, a
native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion an
order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Builes's application for
asylum.2 For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition for
review.
Builes entered the United States without a valid entry
document on October 17, 2001, and was placed in removal proceedings
four days later. Builes filed an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT), claiming that he had been persecuted in Colombia
based on his political opinion and that he feared continued
persecution if he were forced to return to Colombia.
At a hearing before the IJ, Builes, the sole witness,
testified that he managed a farm owned by his father, although both
he and his parents lived elsewhere. In early 2000, guerilla forces
visited the farm, demanded that a "tax" be paid every six months,
and threatened to slaughter cattle if the "tax" were not paid.
Builes arranged for the farm's foreman, who lived on the premises,
1
In his brief, the petitioner is referred to as "Builes" so we
use that name in our opinion.
2
Builes does not seek review of the BIA's denial of his
application for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
-2-
to pay the "tax" to the guerillas. The first payment was made in
early 2000, the last in June 2001.
Builes further testified that in July 2001, a
paramilitary group began threatening his family based on the group's
belief that the Builes family was collaborating with guerilla
forces. The paramilitaries apparently believed that the "tax"
payments were evidence of the Builes family's support of the
guerilla forces. The paramilitary group's threats involved graffiti
at the family farm and telephone calls to Builes's home warning
against continued collaboration with the guerilla forces. Builes
reported the threats to local police, but according to Builes,
nothing was done. Builes testified that after these incidents, he
was "desperate" to leave Colombia because he felt that his life was
in danger.
In September 2001, Builes traveled to Medellin, Colombia,
to obtain a passport and stayed with family members in that city for
some time. After receiving a fraudulent passport, Builes traveled
through Colombia to Venezuela, where he purchased an airline ticket
and eventually arrived in the United States on October 17, 2001.
About three months after Builes left Colombia, his father sold the
farm. Builes's parents and younger siblings still live in Colombia.
The IJ found Builes's testimony regarding the guerilla
and paramilitary incidents credible, as it was consistent both
internally and with country condition reports for Colombia. The IJ
-3-
also found, however, that (1) Builes's testimony regarding his
fraudulently obtained passport and his travels through Colombia to
Venezuela and the United States was vague and inconsistent;
(2) Builes failed to establish that the threats to his family
continued after his father sold the farm; (3) Builes failed to
submit copies of the police reports documenting the threats or
statements from family members corroborating the threats; and (4)
Builes failed to explain why he could not relocate within Colombia
given his previous ability to travel unmolested throughout the
country. Based on these findings, the IJ concluded that Builes was
not entitled to relief. The BIA affirmed without opinion. Builes
then filed this petition for review, arguing that he made the
necessary showing to qualify for asylum.
When the BIA summarily affirms an IJ's decision, "we
treat the findings and conclusion[s] of the IJ as the Board's."
Herbert v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 2003). We will
uphold an IJ's determination denying asylum if it is "supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole." INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). We will reverse only if the evidence presented was so
overwhelming that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
reach the contrary conclusion. See Olujoke v. Gonzales,
411 F.3d
16, 21 (1st Cir. 2005).
-4-
"To qualify as persecution, [an alien's] experience must
rise above unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering."
Nelson v. INS, 232 F.3d 258, 263 (1st Cir. 2000). Here, the IJ
found "it impossible to conclude . . . that [Builes's] fears of harm
were so significant that his departure from his country was
necessary for him to find safe haven." We agree. The graffiti and
telephone threats were not addressed to Builes personally. Builes
was never directly confronted by the paramilitary group or
threatened with serious harm. He traveled throughout Colombia free
from harassment. We cannot conclude that a reasonable factfinder
would have been compelled to find that Builes's experiences amounted
to more than harassment and unpleasantness. The record supports the
IJ's conclusion that Builes has failed to establish past
persecution.
Generally, if an alien establishes past persecution, he
is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution unless
the INS proves otherwise. See 8 C.F.R. ยง 208.13(b)(1)(ii).
Although Builes is not entitled to this presumption, he nevertheless
can establish a well-founded fear of future persecution if he can
show that his fear is "both genuine and objectively reasonable."
Nelson, 232 F.3d at 264 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The IJ concluded that after Builes's father sold the family farm,
Builes had no "objective reasons to fear harm in his home country"
since the guerilla forces made no further demands for "tax" payments
-5-
and the paramilitary group made no further threats related to his
family's perceived collaboration with the guerilla forces.
Moreover, the IJ found that members of Builes's family continue to
live in Colombia and that there was no evidence that these relatives
have been subjected to threats or physical harm. Based on the
record in this case, we cannot say that a reasonable factfinder
would be compelled to find that Builes demonstrated a well-founded
fear of future persecution. Accordingly, the finding by the IJ that
Builes failed to establish an objectively reasonable basis to fear
future persecution if he is returned to Colombia must be upheld.
In sum, we hold that substantial evidence supports the
IJ's conclusion that Builes failed to show either past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore deny the
petition for review.
-6-
