Edwin Posada Pabon v. U.S. Attorney General, 704 F. App'x 903

Edwin Posada Pabon, a Colombian national, entered the U.S. in 2001 and conceded removability in proceedings initiated in 2009.
In 2013 (amended 2015) he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging death threats and that multiple maternal relatives had been murdered by drug cartels in Colombia.
Pabon testified to three separate incidents in which unknown gunmen fired at him in the late 1980s–early 1990s and to a history of family murders connected to cartel violence; he claimed a cartel member later searched for him.
The IJ found some of Pabon’s testimony credible but disbelieved the 2012 phone-call threat and denied asylum as untimely; the IJ also found he failed to prove past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution and denied CAT relief.
The BIA affirmed, concluding Pabon did not show past persecution tied to a protected ground and that family murders did not demonstrate persecution of Pabon himself; it also agreed future persecution was not established.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision (and IJ on issues the BIA adopted) under the substantial-evidence standard and denied Pabon’s petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pabon established past persecution on account of a protected ground sufficient to support withholding of removal	Pabon contended the three shootings against him plus extensive family murders by the Cali cartel show past persecution and a presumption of future persecution	DHS/BIA argued the record lacks evidence the attacks and family murders were directed at Pabon, the shootings are not shown to be attempted murders, the cartel was dismantled, and relatives remain in Colombia unharmed	Court held substantial evidence supports BIA that Pabon did not establish past persecution; petition denied

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (scope of review of BIA decisions)
Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (review of IJ decisions when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard and when reversal is compelled)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (burden to show likelihood of persecution for withholding)
Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (ways to satisfy withholding burden: past persecution or future threat)
Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (future-threat standard for withholding)
Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2007) (attempted murder can constitute persecution; persecution requires more than isolated harassment)
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) (harms to family do not automatically equate to persecution of the asylum seeker)
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement for claims to the BIA)