Luz Marina Silva v. U.S. Attorney General

threat, death the FARC start- written PRYOR, CARNES, Before HULL daily calling ed at her house res- Judges. Circuit taurant, and, 9, 1999, on October two men driving at her car while shot PRYOR, Judge: Circuit hit rear application window. Silva’s petition in this presented The main issue shooting stated that after she decided evidence, light viewed in the is whether country, to leave which she findings to the fact most favorable 8, application March 2000. The also stated two unknown Immigration Judge, that calling that the FARC continued Silva dai- shots for unknown reasons fired persons ly country left the that on the until she and Silva, Luz a Colombi- at the car of Marina told last call she was that she was missed citizen, had received a soon after she an on 9 but would not be missed October political her ac- single threat about written asylum again. portions Relevant of Silva’s threatening, po- not tivity several and application Appendix are attached as A to litical, calls, the con- telephone compelled dissenting opinion. persecution past clusion that Silva suffered and Naturalization perse- Immigration The has a well-founded fear of future or appear on opinion. issued Silva a notice to account of Service cution on her May 30, 2001, with re- charged and Silva asylum alleged and applied Silva for in the United movability remaining for persecuted in Colombia she was (FARC). permitted. a than longer for time Revolutionary Armed Forces States § appeared pro 1227. Silva testimony See 8 U.S.C. Silva’s her Because Immigration Judge Pedro Mi- se before failed to that the threats hearing establish a granted 2001 and was August more harass- randa received were than mere attorney. an On continuance to obtain to that the ment and she failed establish 26, 2002, again appeared February politi- on Silva incident was based her shooting Judge and admitted compel pro not se before Miranda opinion, cal the record does appear. alleged the notice past persecu- facts that she suffered conclusion request, Judge At Miranda sched- a fear of future Silva’s tion or has well-founded Septem- hearing for uled removal deny petition. Silva’s persecution. We Silva’s 2002, prepare 16, allow time to ber Silva I. BACKGROUND attorney. re- her case and locate an on Decem- hearing finally was held moval admitted the United States Silva was 13, se and appeared pro 2002. ber Silva 8, on nonimmigrant visitor March to secure that she had been unable stated to remain and was authorized con- attorney. declined another an Silva until March 2001. One United States prepared and that she was tinuance stated later, just she was scheduled year before only herself. Silva was represent sought asylum. her depart, Silva withholding hearing. at the for of witness application asylum and people.” that she had lived her the Colombian Another testified caller Silva Balta, Colombia, she, and entire life in and she a target said Silva was because unlike family always politically been ac- had family, other members of her not did that, although testified tive. Silva bodyguard. testify did not Silva for its association with the is known politics. of the calls mentioned her she had party, participated Conservative 9, 1999, On October about three weeks mayoral presidential campaigns and note,” after Silva received the “condolence Mockus, Antanas of the Vision- member two men motorcycles followed Silva ary 1994. party, since Silva worked owned, home from the restaurant she campaign may- on a Mockus successful during trip, they gun fired shots into in 1994 Bogota or of unsuccessful car. The shots hit the back window of presidency bid for the Colombia in car, injured. Silva’s but she was not That explained Visionary party Silva night, telephone Silva received a call and its from drew members both the tradition- report the caller warned her not to parties. al Conservative Liberal shooting to the Colombian authorities. During campaigns, par- Moekus’s Silva identify The caller did not himself. ticipated brigades,” “help “health or bri- Although speculated Silva first that the gades,” groups which were responsible FARC shooting, for the neighborhoods into traveled and offered later admitted that she know neighborhoods the residents those who fired the shots made phone or call to encourage support health services why the shots were fired. Silva testi- Visionary Party. Silva stated that she fied that participated the last time she in spoke on behalf of people Mockus to politics days was few before the October around her but never in front of audi- an 9, 1999, shooting. Silva testified that she ence. Silva offered no evidence that she threats, calls, had no further or other any way during was threatened in 9, problems 1999, after October until she campaigns work the Mockus in 1994 came to the United States in November and 1997. 1999, In June Silva came to the United stayed Silva in the United States from on a stayed States tourist visa. She for 2000, January November 1999until but did one month then and returned to Colombia. asylum. not seek Silva then chose re- Colombia, After her return to again Silva turn Colombia to a dying visit relative. for worked Mockus in his second success- “thought Silva testified that she enough campaign ful mayor Bogotá. elapsed time had that go and could [she] September while partici- Silva was back, things that might be different.” Af- pating brigades,” one of the “health she Colombia, ter her return to again Silva was handed a “condolence note” that said began receiving anonymous telephone calls peace “Luz Marina doing Silva rest in said, “daily,” in which the callers in an what she doing wrong shouldn’t be in the apparent shooting reference of Sil- place.” note, Silva stated that the which car, once, va’s already “we missed don’t she neither reported to nor authorities provoke again” us and “we are not kept, going was signed by the FARC. Silva that, time, to miss a going second we’re to kill stated after she received the “condo- note,” you.” speculated “provoke” anonymous by lence she Silva that received tele- phone occasion, anony- anonymous calls. On one that callers meant mous caller target told Silva that not she was a should Colombia or return to because her always exploited “had Colombia from United States. applicant to the mistreat- any of the new the are related testify that did not Silva states, calls The Profile “often telephone alleged.” referenced ment anonymous and there no evidence activity, express uncertainty is applicants about the activity any political engaged identity alleged Silva of their motivation and/or Apart anonymous from the tele- in 2000. The Profile concludes that abusers.” calls, any prob- not have phone Silva did “[bjecause of the violent nature of the nar- after she returned. Sil- lems in Colombia guerrillas ac- cotics traffickers whose the calls in 2000 to report va agenda are tivities and often influenced cousin, that her who police. She testified availability drug money, almost Mockus, secretary to also received alleged by asylum applicants from abuse telephone calls and anonymous could have occurred or at least Colombia letters and of Colombia received all country be inconsistent with the would not calculated to terrorize telephone calls conditions.” people get let- speculated that them. She testimony, At close of Silva’s person calls if “the that’s phone ters and Immigration Judge found that had or political group involved some per- neither that she had established been something doing they first time past in the nor that she had a well- secuted person don’t this not in—that want persecution founded fear account returned do reasons.” Silva for whatever ground she returned to Colom- protected States March about the United Immigration Judge found that bia. The had returned to two months after she Co- Silva received could not be the threats hearing testimony is at- Silva’s lombia. Immigra- persecution. as The classified dissenting B to the Appendix tached that, Judge although also found tion opinion. shooting incident could be classified as testimony oral In addition to Silva’s did not know who shot persecution, Silva asylum the record before application, Judge why. Immigration Immigration Judge contained Silva’s recognized conditions Colombia application for written violent, “everybody in but stated that were Report Rights Country 2000 on Human general- con- suffers under these Colombia Country Re- Practices Colombia. The activity.” and criminal of violence ditions that, 2000, the Colombian port noted Judge not make an Immigration The to face continued serious “Government decision credibility finding. adverse challenges to its control over the national is attached Immigration Judge the as of territory, longstanding widespread as and dissenting opinion. Sil- Appendix C rampant conflict and vio- internal armed three-judge panel of the appealed a va per- and political lence—both criminal — af- Immigration Appeals, which Board of Country Report recounted sisted.” The of Immigration firmed the decision widespread of violence multiple stories Judge opinion. petitioned without Silva citi- against and indiscriminate attacks represented by and counsel for review is zens, military civilian. both appeal. on part of the record was Colom- Also Asylum Country bia-Profile of Claims II. OF REVIEW STANDARD Conditions, vast “[t]he which states Immigration the Board of When as of majority (perhaps high percent) 90 of the Immi adopts the decision Appeals on asylum from are based claims Colombia Judge opinion, without we review gration even in where there political grounds cases Judge. of Al Immigration of the decision political is that the views little evidence 1236 1262, Ashcroft,

Najjar compels v. 257 F.3d 1284 dence the conclusion that she suf- Cir.2001). (11th legal review de and, We issues past persecution fered in the alterna- Ashcroft, Mohammed v. 261 F.3d novo. tive, she a had well-founded fear of future (11th Cir.2001). 1244, 1247-48 This Court persecution political on of account findings fact under reviews “administrative Second, opinion. argues Silva that she is highly deferential substantial evidence withholding entitled to removal because Ashcroft, 1022, v. test.” 386 F.3d Adefemi she established a clear probability (11th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert. de 1026 life would be endangered she was re- nied, 2245, 544 125 S.Ct. 161 U.S. Third, turned to argues Colombia. (2005). must affirm the L.Ed.2d 1063 We Immigration Appeals the Board of if it Immigration Judge is decision regulations violated its when it affirmed “ by reasonable, substantial, ‘supported opinion without Immi- decision probative evidence con record gration Judge, allegedly who committed ” Sepulveda as a whole.’ sidered v. U.S. procedural other each errors. We review Gen., (11th Att’y 401 F.3d 1230 Cir. argument in turn. 2005), (11th superseding F.3d 378 1260 Cir.2004) (quoting Najjar, Al 257 F.3d at A. in the Light Viewed Most Favorable 1284); Adefemi, 386 (quoting F.3d Immigra- the Fact Findings same). Thus, we engage do not de Judge, tion the Record Not Does findings by novo review of factual the Im Compel the Conclusion That Silva Judge. Adefemi, F.3d at migration Asylum. Was Entitled to asylum “To eligibility establish “[Findings by ... of fact made on political opinion based or any other [Immigration may Judge] be reversed must, protected ground, the alien only this [C]ourt when the record com evidence, (1) credible past perse establish reversal; pels a the mere fact that cution on political account of her or opinion may support contrary record Conclusion any (2) other protected ground, or a ‘well- enough to justify reversal founded fear’ that opinion Id.-, findings.” administrative 8 U.S.C. protected other ground will cause fu 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he § administrative persecution.” ture Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at findings of fact are conclusive unless 1230-31. Each of asylum avenue relief adjudicator compelled reasonable would be requires proof two criteria. To estab contrary.”). to conclude to the view “[W]e past persecution, lish based on the record light evidence in the fa most (1) applicant prove per must she was agency’s vorable to the decision and draw (2) secuted, persecution and that the was all in reasonable inferences that favor of protected on account of a ground. See id. decision.” highly Id. Under this deferen eligibility To establish “ for based on review, tial standard may of ‘re we not a well-founded fear of persecution, future weigh the evidence’ from scratch.” Mazar (1) applicant the prove “subjective must Gen., v. iegos Att’y U.S. 241 F.3d Office of genuine ly objectively and reasonable” fear (11th 1320, Cir.2001) 1323 Lor (quoting persecution, of Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at INS, (11th 1441, isme v. 129 F.3d 1444-45 1289, (2) that is on of a protected account Cir.1997)). ground, Sepulveda, see 401 F.3d at 1230- 31.

III. DISCUSSION Silva arguments makes three main on Before review we the details of the rec- appeal. First, ord, Silva argues that the evi- we must recall our how standard of

1237 first conclude that reading this We the our of record. governs review on the “condolence note” Silva received was is whether not determine Our task activity, her political of account' of but this from her version Silva draws inferences deny, is not sufficient to entitle not one incident Silva We do events reasonable. asylum. is an “[P]ersecution extreme example, the reasonableness Silva’s threat, concept, requiring more than a the few isolat that the written contention calls, shooting the ed incidents verbal harassment intim anonymous phone Sepulveda, 401 at related, what we F.3d idation^]” but that is not were all (internal quotation more marks and citation Our review is are asked to consider. omitted). The Judge found “condolence note” was an Immigration limited. The intimidation, example of harassment and entitlement prove that failed Silva persecution. the not The “condolence our is to review but asylum, task asylum. alone did not entitle Silva to Judge under note” Immigration of the decision substantial evidence highly the deferential Second, testimony Silva’s re affirm if the decision of test: we must telephone anonymous calls she garding rea- Judge “supported by Immigration received, beginning September 1999 un sonable, substantial, and evi- probative 9, shooting incident on October til on the record considered dence 1999, compel the conclusion that does Najjar, 257 F.3d 1284. Al whole.” persecuted on account of her Silva highly that standard With deferential timing political opinion. Although mind, pre- Silva we review the evidence supports calls an inference telephone light favorable to the most sented politi that the calls were related Silva’s Judge. findings Immigration of the also activity, supports cal evidence an that the calls were unrelated to categories four inference testified about Silva activity. that the asylum applica- that The record reflects support events callers, anonymous Silva First, Septem- that in whom testified tion. testified always,” gave Silva a “condolence note” were “different ber 1999 she received FARC, messages, “Luz and Silva did not testi signed by which stated different fy any messages referenced her peace doing rest in what Marina Silva Furthermore, activity. although wrong place.” political in the doing she shouldn’t be Second, engaged that she that she received Silva testified Silva testified activity campaigns-in af- in Mockus’s anonymous threatening telephone calls 1997, testify that she did not she was receiving ter “condolence note.” way during Third, her work men on threatened Silva testified two brigades. campaigns and health motorcycle her ear and hit with those shot into political participation past extensive back She Silva’s window October threatening calls or other harass anonymous without testified that she received ment, along the lack of reference to telephone shooting call about supports in the calls night politics that she not have further calls were not about in No- inference those problems until left Colombia addition, that, activity. as Fourth, political Silva testified Silva’s vember 1999. note,” receipt the of January in the “condolence she returned to Colombia with when in and Oc 2000, anonymous September threats anonymous she received more 1999, more, qualify without does not telephone calls referenced tober threatening persecution, “[m]ere because harass incident. We examine these as shooting the persecution.” not ment does amount events in turn. 1238 F.3d at 1231 a (quoting 401 Gon and half with no further

Sepulveda, difficulties. Sil- (11th 1338, Reno, 212 F.3d zalez v. 1355 the va came to States Novem- United Cir.2000)). 21, 1999, stayed January ber 2000 asylum. but did not seek then Silva re- assume, Third, we of the sake turned to Colombia for few months be- did, Immigration Judge as the argument, returning fore to the United in States shooting would qualify persecu that the then, March 2000. Even Silva did not tion, compel does not but Silva’s evidence asylum until year seek later. do not We shooting that the con the conclusion was sincerity asy- doubt Silva’s in applying activity. political to her Silva testi nected 2001, lum March but her actions not she did know who shot at her fied that and 2000 not comport do with the actions why. Immigration Judge The rea car or anof individual who believed at that time sonably powerful that candid and took ad political that she a target persecu- at face its value. mission It tion. is reasonable to infer from Silva’s although Again, timing the of the shoot- actions that the allegedly “compelling” allow an ing would inference that it was connection shooting between the and her note,” related the rec- “condolence activity political immediately ap- was not compel ord not that conclusion. does Sub- parent even to Silva. inference, evidence also an stantial allows Immigration Judge found, as the that the final The events about which Silva incident, shooting for which Silva had no anonymous telephone testified involve the explanation, distinguish did not from calls from January to March but majority of Colombians who are also testimony Silva’s about these did calls not subject general conditions of vio- political establish that were about her activity and criminal lence Colombia. opinion or anything more than harassment. Country Report Both Colombian anonymous Silva testified callers Country replete Profile are de- incident, referenced the shooting October scriptions widespread and indiscrimi- but she did not testify any of the nate violence. Silva testified that some of politics. callers mentioned Silva also ac anonymous shooting calls before the knowledged that participated she had not about were exploiting the Co- any political activity since before the having body- lombian and her not shooting and that not report any she did guard, that did not know who shot police. the calls to the Apart from the why, routinely her or and that Colombians calls, telephone Silva not have similar suffer incidents of terroristic problems in other threats and violence. are required We view all of light Although testimony this evidence in the most Silva’s does not findings Immigra- favorable to the compel anonymous the conclusion that the Judge, tion Adefemi, F.3d at calls 2000 were on politi- account of her light, say cannot shooting we opinion, cal timing and substance of was indisputably related political to Silva’s those calls do support inference that activity. the earlier shooting was not about Silva’s political activity. Silva received the calls credibly

Silva testified about these though events, even she had not been involved but it clear from the record politics for believed, at least three months. that even Silva at the time of incident, shooting, that calls referenced shooting it was related activity. After the shooting, re- Silva offered no evidence that mained in Colombia for almost a month politics. calls referenced The references

1239 Sepulveda, incident, Our decision in where the without men- shooting to the asylum allegedly persecu- feared applicant which had activity, political of tion Silva’s at main Colom- earlier, tion the hands other suggest that months several ended ELN, is guerilla group, instructive. bian shooting incident was unrelated Sil- the “participated approximately in Sepulveda is activity. This inference political va’s and peace personally ten marches” assist- that, in fact by the supported also hostage negotiations in “between the ed in the participated when she and hostages’ kidnappers the families.” brigades, and health campaigns Mockus 401 F.3d at 1229. We conclud- Sepulveda, calls, from no telephone received Silva specific against that threats ed evidence of not when she was January to March by telephone Sepulveda, delivered both activity, any political Silva participating members, as as a her well her that did not mention received calls bombing Sepulve- of restaurant where activity. political worked, require grant that da did not we sum, we the evidence when view petition bombing for review. As to the her finding light most favorable incident, explained, “Although the evi- we the record does Immigration Judge, may permit dence conclusion the restau- that suf- compel not the conclusion Silva bombing Sepulveda rant was directed testi- political persecution. Silva’s fered political activity, account of it does on that mony compels the conclusion such a conclusion.” Id. at compel not of her note” was on account “condolence “the menacing also ruled that We not opinion, but this event does political her, telephone calls and threats persecution. Sepulveda, qualify as brother, of the univer- and other members assume, for Although we F.3d at 1231. past sity do rise to the level of group not shooting argument, the sake of compel that would reversal of persecution persecution, apart qualifies incident The Sepulveda the IJ’s decision.” Id. time, not offer from closeness Silva did only a rare ease decision illustrates shooting with any evidence to connect compel the conclusion that does the record political note” or her activ- the “condolence per- applicant past suffered ity The record com- general. does of fu- has a well-founded fear secution or shooting on that the pel the conclusion persecution. petition Silva’s does not ture activity. Similarly, political account of her that rare case. present compel does not the conclusion record majority de- The dissent accuses harassing, anonymous telephone its constructing the evidence to reach deci- on account of her calls received were Silva imagina- sion, a vivid but the dissent uses opinion. inferences favor tion draw to establish Silva also failed that favor ignore competing inferences of future persecution well-founded fear Immigration Judge, findings to Colombia. Silva failed contrary she returned standard of to our deferential singled will out imaginative establish that she inferences review. Because opin or the political opinion opinion, account of her its the dissent support are all that who, trying to family. Because the record of one position ions of left in the water, must first compel leaky does not the conclusion fill a bucket testimony is full subject all Silva’s past plug treatment to which Silva was the holes. holes, impermissibly political opinion, of her and the dissent ed was on account plug favor to persecu inferences Silva’s subjective fear of future draws Silva’s those holes. objectively tion is not well-founded.

1240 testifies, hearing example applicant of the dissent draw- later at before prime judge, in that is an immigration applicant favor of Silva the will an inference ing that, true, the is the infer- by record an infer compelled allege compel not facts the cases, connection between condo- persecution. many of a ence ence of the note, shooting, anonymous and the lence Immigration Judge appli will find that the she did not calls. Silva admitted telephone incredible, testimony is and the Im cant’s identity or motivation of the know Judge migration base that adverse will shooters, Country Reports and and credibility on determination the inconsis that random threats Profile established appli tencies between the earlier written in are common Colom- and acts of violence testimony. applicant’s cation and the later regard political to the victim’s bia without See, Gen., e.g., Forgue Att’y v. U.S. 401 in also had been involved opinion. (11th Cir.2005); D-Mu 1285 F.3d years receiving politics for several without Gen., Att’y v. humed U.S. F.3d 388 testify not Silva did threats. (11th Cir.2004). Silva, contrast, in anonymous in calls she received allegations application wrote in her for politics, 1999 and mentioned her and more, asylum that, without an supported the calls 2000 were received several of persecution inference on account of her ac- months after Silva ended her political opinion, but when Silva later testi There was a tivity. connection between credibly greater fied and in detail about anonymous shooting, calls and the facts, asylum hearing, those at her she nor shooting neither the calls were provided ample grounds finding for necessarily related to Al- politics. Silva’s persecution she had not suffered based though Immigration Judge, ab- political opinion. her of direct evidence of for sence the reasons good example A of the contrast between shooting, plausibly inferred conclusory application Silva’s written may shooting not have been on Sil- based her specific testimony later and more in- political opinion, va’s the dissent draws identity persecutors. volved the of her Sil- opposite inference favor Silva. application stated, va’s written without problem Another with the inferences qualification, that the FARC called her by they drawn dissent is that her, and tried to kill but when asked about invariably ambiguous ap- based on Silva’s those facts at her hearing, Silva admitted plication asylum specif- rather than her did not responsible know who was ic at testimony hearing response for the telephone shooting: calls or the questions Immigration asked Q. people, you Who were these two do Judge. Although testimony Silva’s was know? consistent application, with her A. No. testimony context greater added detail Q. Why you, shoot shoot cursory facts alleged applica- you, do know? tion, testimony and her exposed substan- I days A. have no idea but before tial deficiencies in asylum. her claim to receiving they calling were me — petition presents atypical Silva’s an con- anonymous phone calls. trast asy- between written application for example Another of this lum and contrast in- testimony by later applicant at a volves Silva’s account of the hearing. applicant asy- Often an timeline lum will allege fail to events and his her travel the United appli- written States. specific cation application credible Silva’s support trip facts did mention her persecution, inference but when that the United States November 1999

1241 “stop neighbor- to these my calls ceased visits threatening telephone that the a half a month and before hoods.” dissent uses that assertion for almost hearing but at her callers, in presumed left Colombia the of about intent the to she came the United testified that at hearing, which Silva did not mention her 21, 1999, and re- States on November telephone to an inference that the supply January in 2000. She to Colombia turned expressly to polit- calls were related Silva’s prob- she had no further also testified that activity. ical shooting the before she came to lems after example gener- Another of the dissent’s in States November: the United conelusory ous of Silva’s application use Q. you came to you what did was So than specific testimony rather her involves next month? the the United States Although the timeline events. Silva tes- Yes, in A. November. hearing prob- tified at her that she had no Q. up to November of Between that — day shooting lems after the of the and you any problems? had other had came to the United States over one month No, no, A. no. later, the that Silva dissent asserts “imme- A of the contrast between example third began to and diately preparations flee ac- application and later speculative Silva’s tually for left the United States on Novem- the contents of the tele- testimony involves 21,1999.” Op. ber Dis. at The basis calls she received. Silva stated phone appar- for this inference favor of Silva is FARC called her her that the application ently asylum applica- a statement Silva’s to stop to her visits the and wanted her tion, stated, in in which she reference to but when she was poor neighborhoods, on, shooting, I the “From that moment hearing to the given opportunity stopped all to my activities decided calls details telephone the Silva’s describe country which I did on March leave the support political an inference of did not imagined This version events [20]00.” testified that she did persecution. Silva urgency creates an inference does who the callers were. Silva also not know testimony. specific not exist Silva’s more in the tele- specific statements described family, calls the phone about wealth in the The dissent also reads record incident, of a shooting absence to it infers light most favorable Silva when her, men- but Silva never bodyguard January anonymous calls anonymous tele- any of the tioned activi- 2000 were related to March calls, or after the either before phone that the callers Janu- ty. Silva testified political activity. shooting, referenced her ary shooting, March 2000 referenced light gaps in Silva’s testi- not, did even asked what but she when mony knowledge lack of and her evident said, men- testify that caller callers alleged persecutors regarding either politics: tioned her allegedly perse- why she was reason when, Q. Bogota you returned to So conelusory cuted, relies the dissent January of 2000? asylum application in Silva’s statements A. Yes. testimony more specific than her rather testi- opinion. Although its Silva’s

bolster Q. you Okay, further the content of hearing fied at her about to Bo- problems after returned calls, but did not mention telephone gota? dissent, quotes politics, example, A. Yes. in which asylum application from Silva’s Q. happened? What the callers wanted she asserted that began activity. once tele- again A. receive tected When an individual seek- group. from the calls urban phone ing persecution based on does not previous had Q. Before the calls been identity alleged know either the anonymous. these calls iden- Were persecutors persecu- or the reason for the tified? tion, the prevalence of random violent ac- way, anonymous. A. The same No. Colombia, tivity totally in unrelated to Q. say? What protected ground, allows a reasonable in- once, already pro- seeking asylum A. missed don’t ference that the individual We We on again. victim, voke us missed the political persecution, is the not of 9th, going we not miss a are of random violence. we read When time, kill going you. we’re second reports light in the Colombian the most rude, very very A obscene. finding Immigration favorable of the must, Judge, there is no evidence that these as we the Although substantial evi- calls in were related either to Silva’s of non-political activity dence in violent note,” or politics, the “condolence or even supports Colombia the conclusion that Sil- preceded shooting, the calls that the the evidence, gaping va’s with its holes and allegedly dissent draws an in- compelling proof, persecu- of did not absence establish in ference favor of Silva and the treats tion on account of a protected ground. calls and these other events as unquestion- Regarding our prece- reference to our ably Op. Dis. interrelated. at 1246. The in Sepulveda, dent the dissent wonders the failure of dissent draw the reason- whether petition the of a appli- successful inference, able in favor of finding the of asylum cant for in our Court like the Immigration events, Judge, the that these unicorn, dissent, fabled but the as with its country by besieged indiscriminate evidence, view of the point the misses violence, intimidation, crime, could be of scope about the our It review. is a rare unrelated, is telling. compel that will case of the reversal Immi- Finally, the dissent takes the issue with gration Judge one for fundamental reason: by majority Immigra- reliance and the Immigration Judge a superior is in Judge tion Country the Colombian Re- position to findings make of fact. We do port Country Profile. dissent The reweigh not presented the evidence to an argues majority that the recognize fails to Immigration Judge for sound reasons. “that Country Profile indicates Immigration Judges, we, actually not see target- much of the violence Columbia is and hear the applicants asylum for testify. ed at activities are protected Immigration Judges, we, grounds.” personal Dis. Op. at 1247. The dissent quotes Country applicants encounters with for asylum Profile that “[F]our who, out every ten targeted murders are for from Colombia like thousands of oth- labor, their political, involvement Colombians, er suffer real threats of vio- social causes.” Id. we, lence. Immigration Judges, not are on everyday the front deciding lines whether Again the dissent reads the record persecution suffered applicant light most favorable to Silva. We requirement meets the of Con- agree place is a Colombia where the gress it a protected be based on ordinary, awful is but we must state ground. Our standard of obvious: four review reflects every out of ten murders are on account of the wisdom that protected Immigration Judges ground, six out of ten are not. majority position judgment a better to make that violence Colombia is not to pro- related call. omitted). failed to establish recognizes that Because Silva

Although the law saw and heard Judge eligibility asylum, who she likewise failed to Immigration position superior testify withholding Silva establish entitlement to of re- fact, is able to the dissent findings make moval.

find, cold before record its search Immigration Appeals C. The Board are not clear us.

us, facts that several Regulations Its First, identity Obeyed When It finds dissent testified that though Opinion. even shooters Without Affirmed Second, the dis- did not know them. arguments final relate Silva’s of the shooters the motivation sent finds the alleged procedural to errors of Immi that she did not though Silva testified even gration Judge Immigration Board of and Third, dissent the know their motivation. Appeals. interpretation of We defer telephone identify the callers finds govern regulations the the Board of anonymous. as that Silva described interpretation if Immigration Appeals the Fourth, the finds that calls the dissent by'the Board and does not is reasonable though even politics about Silva’s were Congress. contradict the clear intent of single reference to did not describe Silva U.S.A., Chevron Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Fifth, in the activities calls. Inc., Council, 837, 842-43, 104 467 U.S. involving finds that the events the dissent (1984). 2778, 2781-82, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 S.Ct. calls, threat, and un- anonymous a written Immigration Judge If the the decision of in a all interrelated known shooters were complies regulations, with the issues threats, country where indiscriminate complex, are and the issues case not crime, commonplace. are and violence precedent, it governed by existing then we, dissent, like the would have Whether is for Board to affirm the deci proper if Sil- findings, faced with made different Judge Immigration sion of the without for live testi- application asylum and va’s Gonzalez-Oropeza v. opinion. United view the mony, is irrelevant. When we Gen., 1331, Att’y 321 F.3d 1333 States- to light most favorable record (11th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. see that the Immigration Judge, we conclude (i). 1003.1(e)(4) § supported application of denial Silva’s reject We Silva’s by substantial evidence. the Board of complains Silva review of the denial petition for affirmed without Immigration Appeals asylum. application for Immigration Judge failed opinion, and the for a satisfy the standards of the Board Compel Not B. The Record Does decision, arguments reasoned these Entitled That Was Conclusion case Nothing required fail. in this writ Withholding Removal. by Immigration opinion ten the Board qualify withholding for re To Immigration Judge The did not Appeals. moval, that it Silva must have established errors, is commit material and clear life likely more than not that her or is governed by sues this case were presented be on account of freedom would threatened and previous our decisions Adefemi factor if statutorily protected returned Sepulveda. 1231(b)(3). § “Where Colombia. 8 U.S.C. the ‘well- applicant is unable meet IV. CONCLUSION asylum, [s]he founded fear’ standard for is for deny petition review We Silva’s qualifying from ei generally precluded for her removal. order asylum withholding of [removal].” ther or (citations PETITION DENIED. Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93 Al 1244

CARNES, Judge, dissenting: Circuit went back FARC “will find me later, sooner to be tortured killed deny from decision to Ms. dissent always and FARC does.” applica- These petition for review of the order of Silva’s tion statements are consistent with her removal, which is based on the denial of testimony. That should be all we need to asylum. application Gonzales, v. Menghesha know. See I. (4th Cir.2006) (reciting F.3d question immi- “undisputed The whether the facts adduced [the] judge gration should have found state- application hearing testimony” asylum applica- in her ments Silva made stating contrary “[i]n the absence of evi- hearing testimony tion and credible. or an credibility dence adverse determina- judge The did credit her Be- statements. tion, we accept uncontested account [the] did, we, too, requires cause he law true.”). as accept Yang Silva’s statements as truth. majority’s attempt to dismiss Silva’s Gen., Att’y v. U.S. 418 F.3d 1201 asylum application “ambiguous” com- (11th Cir.2005); Vasquez-Mondmgon v. pared specific to “her testimony” at the INS, (5th Cir.1977). 1225, 560 F.2d 1226 fact, hearing unconvincing. is In Silva’s of reviewing asylum In a denial the where detailed, application is if specific as and immigration judge applicant, credited the so, not more than her testimony. Her only we are to take as true not the state- application actually contains more words during testimony ments she made her than her testimony, and the bulk what of those application, also contained her at application she said her is a and lengthy two least where the are consistent. See explanation detailed preced- events Gen., Att’y 1361, v. Nreka U.S. 408 F.3d ing following and attempt FARC’s her (11th Cir.2005) 1364 (considering ap- “his It ambiguous. life. is not pointedly Silva asylum testimony”); for plication and his states FARC tried to kill her will and Sepulveda Gen., Att’y v. 401 U.S. F.3d kill her she to is forced return to Colom- (11th Cir.2005) 1229-30 (examining bia. To avoid a battle of and scissors “Sepulveda’s testimony asy- both and trading snippets of Silva’s statements and application” lum and stating standard of testimony with majority, I at- review in of “the terms record considered appendices tached as to opinion every this whole”). And, as a majority as the con- part her application where made she cedes, testimony “Silva’s was consistent any statement (App.A), about facts asylum application.” Maj. Op. at testimony entire (App.B), and the immi- C). gration judge’s ruling (App. inter- application Silva said in her that after ested reader can everything see herself note, FARC sent threatening her the she that Silva said and context in which daily received threatening phone almost it. she said calls from which until FARC continued she reading testimony Silva’s hear- left the country. She also that: “I stated ing should keep we in mind that there by was threatened to death the FARC’s only questions answered im- by asked militias”; urban FARC me a “declared migration judge expressed skep- military objective”; “If I his go back to Co- —who killed”; ticism of all relating lombia ... claims to Co- [I be] will tortured and “I by attorney would be killed as lombia—and representing FARC sentenced me”; my Immigration and “I know that if I to go back and Naturalization Ser- country I explained will kill [sic].” She Silva attorney, spoke through vice. had no

1245 testimony proved that she had suf attempt not to and and did interpreter, a lay person, “persecution or well-founded fear fered herself. As question that the statements ... po believed on account of may persecution [her] well have asylum. her to entitled application opinion” meaning in her within the litical that as an to view 101(a)(42)(A) difficult me It is the Immigration § belief, it is since especially unreasonable Act, Nationality 8 U.S.C. majority’s Again, one that share. 1101(a)(42)(A). § Our standard of review testimony more Silva’s insistence that apply a evi requires that we substantial than her statements detailed specific and if the immigra test to determine dence not simply is accurate. in her application supported by judge’s tion decision is (the asylum application) A Compare App. “reasonable, substantial, probative (the testimony). App. B on the record considered as a evidence accept 1230; Silva’s cred- 401 F.3d at Al purporting Sepulveda, While whole.” true, actu- majority as Ashcroft, ited statements Najjar v. F.3d credibility run around ally Cir.2001). an end (11th not, does If then evidence selectively dismissing determination “compel” would reasonable factfinder position, its her statements discomfort immigration otherwise than the conclude suggest- labeling “speculative,” them did, we must reverse. judge Se not after maybe Silva was credible ing 401 F.3d at 1230. pulveda, Because majority more than example, the all. For cases def review these standard not maybe Silva should implies once erential, been we have loath find that report because she be believed ap met petitioner has her burden on she threatening phone calls police the the This, however, a case peal. is which explained that she did not received. Silva she has done so. we should find had been warned: them because she report making a about you dare even think “don’t II. are people Colombia report,” and by Silva’s state- The facts established reports. make police too afraid to before she ments are these. Three weeks event, and to the threats report failure her at, threatening was shot Silva received the prevent her not against violence the note” from FARC. As “condolence crediting her immigration judge from recognizes, this threat majority opinion happened. While about what statements political solely made because of Silva’s was evidence, reweigh to the not purporting countryside in the on behalf activities by disregard- majority actually does so the fair Party. only inter- Visionary the enough not credible ing specific as not and “Rest in Peace” condo- pretation that Silva made many the statements engaging handed while lence note she was of those she and some application her that FARC was political activities is hearing. the Ei- testifying made at while threatening kill Silva because of those to not, credible, or ther was she was Silva activities. political immigration judge found her and the statements, take her credible. must We threatened to Three after weeks FARC as as well application those in the reason, for that someone tried kill her testifying, true. to be those she made while threat. October carry out that On driving the res- Silva was between while determined Silva Having apartment, ran her her taurant immi- credible, question before the shot her. motorcycle on a at gunmen two the historical judge gration was whether car, of her bullets shattered window application The by Silva’s facts established “missing byme put very Silva it: little.” asked this about the shooters: were “Who obvious, Shying away majori- from the people, these two do she know?” and only opinion willing is ty assume that answered The majority “No.” views being I would persecution. great shot at is be so significance, admission as of stress- is, it especially that, as to hold that when ing bold “she did not know fired the who preceded attempted by murder phone why shots or call made or kill victim written threat to because of Maj. shots Op. were fired.” at 1234. True by political activities her almost enough, the would-be assassins did not daily threatening phone barrage of calls at stop to They rarely introduce themselves. home and restaurant. her do. It is not to expect targets realistic political iden- assassinations know the immigration The element judge tity gunmen who shoot at them. wanting, majority opinion found and the Only, majority’s in the imagination do not compelled concludes is Silva’s state- would-be wear tags killers name drive is that testimony, ments the shooting motoi'cycles around on vanity plates 9, 1999, and on October the threatening displaying the name of their terrorist or- calls she received were on phone account ganization. Silva did While not know the political immigration activities. The identity her, of the two who shot at judge majority wrong. and the Not shooting only testified that the came only shooting did the only come three three weeks after FARC had writ- made a after threatened weeks FARC to kill Silva ten against threat her life because of her involvement, political of her it because also political activities. She also testified came after she to stop refused hearing that “FARC tried to kill me before despite activities the FARC threat. As n I came over here.” put it in asylum application, after note, threatening got “I scared but Contrary majority’s con- repeated myself promise not let these subversive tention phone that the calls weré “threat- intimidate me my [sic] and continued with ening, but political,” Silva stated that political and social involvement.” She had anonymous callers wanted stop her to been political just last involved in activities trips neighborhoods her to the where she days attempt a few before the to kill her. had engaged political in activities and that words, In other FARC threatened Silva family’s knew political par- about with death her political because of activi- ticipation. hearing She testified at ties, she refused give to to the threat that were calls “from the urban political and continued to engage activi- group,” an obvious reference to FARC. ties, and promptly thereafter someone did She also attempted linked the murder to her, kill try just to promised as FARC had her political why activities. When asked it would. her, the men at had shot Silva testified that know, while not days she did to before denigrate the compelling

Attempting facts, attempt to kill her she force these had received majority opinion the anonymous phone only insists calls and three “connection between the shooting weeks political attempt and her before that re- activity was she had not immediately ceived apparent the condolence Maj. even to note from FARC Silva.” at Op. According engaged political while Silva’s That credited activities. testimony: “I attempt against testimony entirely had an my consistent with her life, the to kill FARC tried me statements in application before came over why here.” That is FARC sought wanted her dead and kill her would . asylum. During hearing Silva if she returned to Colombia. The evidence family always exploited the Co- did be- her had that Silva the conclusion compels reason, that FARC and the violence had been lieve, good lombian and with because, kill at her unlike other mem- tried to her. directed family, of her Silva did not have bers at- kill and the threat Silva FARC’s fami- bodyguards. Silva testified are linked made to do so tempt that was always had ly on her father’s side been by in time but also only by closeness politics. explained involved She threatening anonymous, the stream uncles, cousins, my “family” she “meant immedi- began receiving calls Silva phone My of the father’s cousins. father’s side the condolence was handed ately after she family.” timing Describing the note from FARC. calls, referred to of those and content Silva, four Unlike none of her brothers that note from FARC day she received any type had ever been involved and said: politics. They lived in a house with Silva’s phone on the calls From that moment non-political mother. None of the four my daily at started almost from FARC (or ever apparently) brothers the mother “Tomillo my restaurant house and with FARC. The res- problems had They wanting were y Laurel Pimienta.” ran family taurant owned and never neigh- my visits to these stop me to only any problems had with FARC. they also my surprise and to borhoods get immediate person Silva’s my background my family knew all at, FARC, get from shot death threat They participation. family political daily by threatening to be tormented way kill me was a nice that to mentioned Silva, active phone politically calls was the my my politi- all revenge [sic] to take threatening note from who had received advantage taking that were cal relatives political activities. FARC because of her not know the who did of the Colombians cousin, Mayor of if her When asked my family that we were underneath evil Sil- secretary, problems, had Bogota’s for the our welfare not on[ly] looking for “They always received testified: va working class. welfare calls, Bogo- In always. anonymous phone shooting, Silva response always they are ta in the whole Colombia activities, and the stopped political sending letters to terrorize calling and im- calls ceased. She threatening phone out that the vio- pointed people.” Silva to flee and mediately began preparations usually were lence and threats violence on No- the United States actually left for activ- engaged at those targeted returned vember 1999. When Silva get people if a lot of ities. When asked to visit a January in of 2000 Colombia calls, explained: phone letters and relative, threatening phone ill gravely in that’s involved person “Yes. If the daily resumed, they came on a and calls the first time political group or is some left for They continued until Silva basis. in—that that are not doing something time two States second United to do for what- person this they don’t want later, back to months and she has been ever reasons.” since. Colombia facts and determining whether the In threatening phone calls gist of the The a conclu- any compel in case circumstances once, already pro- don’t

was: missed “We full force sion, up face ought we 9th, we missed on the again. voke us We majority’s entirety. in The of them their time, we’re going to miss a second are not instead, is a virtuoso exercise approach, In or more of the you.” to kill one going by disas- proceeds It deconstructionism. was told calls she received Silva phone Labor, Rights the whole of the evidence and Human sembling Pro- Colombia why part by explaining then each itself is Asylum file of Country Claims & Condi- compelling. insufficiently (1997) (“[F]our This is like every tions 3 out of ten attempts man who demonstrate that a targeted murders are for their involve- really by emp- is not bucket of water labor, political, ment with social tying cup by cup, asserting goes it as he causes.”). The fact that there is also indis- along cupful that each is not a full bucket’s criminate violence is no reason refusing until, whole, having emptied the worth he to recognize persecution violence and just proclaims that there wasn’t a bucket grounds specifically that are listed our of water there. Otherwise, immigration laws. no one from only

The conclusion from reasonable the Colombia would eligible asy- ever be by application facts established Silva’s lum. testimony, statements and which were And indeed majority’s under the deci- immigration judge, credited is that sion, no one from Colombia will be entitled threatened, at, the reason she was shot asylum. Since majority “[t]he again political and threatened is her activi- violence Colombia is not pro- related to The evidence compels ties. that conclu- activity,” tected since the “awful is ordi- Silva, It no say sion. answer to as nary,” only every since “four out of did, immigration judge that “I don’t ten murders are on account protected of a position see that are worse than ground,” Maj. Op. at it always will anybody country.” else I doubt reasonable to find that violence was not on forty-three that all million Co- account of protected ground —even being persecuted lombia are by FARC— where, here, a terrorist group threatens the evidence establishes that at least four a political activist with death because of them, brothers, non-political Silva’s politics, she receives a barrage of event, not. In widespread nature threatening phone calls connected in time in a country violence is not a legitimate activities, to that threat and to her denying asylum reason for petitioner to a and soon thereafter someone attempts to

who establishes she has perse- been kill her. This good is not a decision but cuted within meaning is, I suppose, there a bright side. What 101(a)(42)(A) § Immigration the Court today holds will make it easier Nationality Act. numerosity There is no to handle our caseload. the future we exception in asylum laws. can simply stamp any petition for review majority The opinion seems to endorse of a asylum Colombian’s denial: “Af- immigration judge’s widespread terror firmed. See the Silva decision.” exception laws, finding com- Today’s decision implications also has fort in the Colombian Country Report and beyond involving cases appli- Colombian Country Profile’s being, majori- cants. majority opinion refers to the words, ty’s “replete descriptions often-mentioned, sighted, but never “rare widespread and indiscriminate violence.” case” in which the compelling facts are so Maj. Op. at 1237. majority What the that we will an immigration reverse immigration judge recognize fail to is judge’s finding petitioner that a Country has failed Profile indicates prove much of persecution protected the violence in on a target- Columbia is ed at ground. published activities that No protected grounds opinion are of this asylum under the case, country. laws of this Court has ever found that rare See Dep’t of State Democracy, Bureau of today’s case, decision indicates that such a unicorn, only in our exists fabled like the

imagination. Presidency for the in postulate himself 1997, presidential for the 1998 elections. A

APPENDIX run presidential He lost the elections but mayoralty campaign, for the and was elect- FOR ASYLUM APPLICATION Mayor again, as on October 2000. ed OF OR WITHHOLDING REMOVAL very Mayor’s of I worked hard on both very he campaigns because is

Mockus man, working is honest and hard who ABOUT PART C. INFORMATION challenge being of wanting to take the TO ASYLUM YOUR CLAIM dangerous capi- the most mayor of one of very hard to tals of the world works improve image, its even change and Ex- seeking asylum? Why very I now that it is diffi- though believe your the basis is for plain in detail what impossible, given cult if not the over- claim. my country. internal violence of whelmed in seeking political I am may- very actively I worked for the 1994 States, my life is at risk because United fortunately campaign, or’s which we won. of death my country Colombia because working I for Antanas Mockus started by F.A.R.C. treats running in 1997 when he was again traditionally linked I come from President, after a lot of efforts and which very in- Party and to the Conservative worked, 1999, August In after I he lost. family it was For our politics. volved got I came back from United States actively participate with very natural postulation for his new as again involved on campaigns and our on different party actively in mayor. very August, I worked government. in the On positions different I and October when had to September of the I mentioned some question no. country because of the death leave the that have had my my closed relatives against names of threats life. my country. positions

important political on this began my political participation I with the Movi- In 1994 I involved became I August after campaign last Visionario, Independiente miento Cívico my trip to the Bogota from went back only, and this mayoral position for the began working I for the United States. running person of the who is because go I to the campaign. used mayoralty position. for this every headquarters at the meeting party’s week, the different planned where we my cousin Aicia very I am closed to going were to follow strategies that we Silva, secretary general 'current Eugenia there, goals. we pursue our order Bogota. Presided Mayoralty campaigns health organized the also Together participated we Mayor Mockus. place in the different going to take were political campaign. Mayor Mockuses I also did this marginal neighborhoods. though him he does believed on even We I worked for the Conser- campaigns when Party. He belong Conservative proce- of its Party, and was aware vative Independiente” from the “Partido Cívico we campaigns these Through dures. any of the two anyone so from party, and at the same time we helped can vote for him. This parties traditional adepts party. for the got new mayor, he period Bogota’s is his second third around the My problems in 1994. He started Mayor Bogota was the while was September in order to week resigned period from his first neighborhood talking Fe” to calling my the “Santa FARC continued me at house getting an to about education until day the same that I left country. help in life and in get call, ahead order On the last I was told that I was to overcome the difficult situa- Colombia missed on October but that it was not currently it involved in. After tion that is going happen again. For all these rea- lady talking I came to me and finished I seeking political asylum sons am in this I envelope kept my me an which handed country. I go know that if I my back to lady. pocket and thanked That eve- country I will be kill. I ning my opened house when the envel- you any 2. Have or your member of fami- it suffrage I that was a with ope realized ly ever belonged to or been associated my May it and the words: Luz name on any with organization or groups your peace, Marina rest because she Silva as, country, home such but not limited doing suppose she was not to in what to, political party, student group, labor wrong neighborhood. signed It was union, religious organization, military or situation, by country’s Known the FARC. paramilitary group, guerrilla civil patrol, I got promise myself not to let scared organization, group, ethnic human rights these intimidate me and contin- subversive group, or press or media? my political ued with and social involve- Yes. ment. that moment phone From on the calls Traditionally, I my and the rest of fami- daily my from FARC started almost at ly are of the Colombia Party. Conservative my at house and restaurant “Tomillo Lau- To the Colombian Chamber of Com- Pimienta”, they y wanting rel were me to merce. stop my neighborhoods with visits to these my surprise my also knew all Valdivieso, Alfonso Secretary former my background family political (Conservative Justice in Colombia Party). participation. They mentioned that to kill Cousin. He now is the Colombian Ambas- way

me was a nice revenge my take sador at the United Nations. all my political relatives that taking were Valdivieso, Humberto Silva Governor of of the advantage Colombians who did not Santander, Colombia and Ambassador in my know the evil underneath family that Montevideo, Uruguay. Uncle. looking we for our were welfare not for Enrique Valdivieso, Councilman of working welfare of the class. Republic, Bogota, Colombia. Uncle. (a 9, 1999, day On October that I will Silva, Alicia Eugenia Cousin, Former forget). never going When was back Government, Secretary of and current restaurant, my home my from car I was General Secretary to Mayoralty by followed 2 men on a motorcycle, that Mayor Mockus. my shoot hitting car the left rear win- Have or your member of fami- dow, missing by very me little. I acceler- ly ever been mistreated or ated and I threatened don’t even got know how I by your the authorities of on, country home. From home that moment I stopped all or other my county by or a group activities and decided to leave the country 8, 00, groups which I did that are very gov- on March controlled upset ernment, sad and because I don’t or that government know when I will be my family able to see go country back or unwilling unable to con- my country. trol? Question [Response Addendum. See Yes. 1] ... YES, [Yes] it was because If your trip- in detail to the Opinion?

Political 7.Describe country. your States from home United leaving country from which After by death threatened to I was you your you claiming asylum, are or my Because urban militias. FARC’s child(ren), are now in the spouse or who my political partic- background and States, through or reside travel United been many my family ipation, country entering the any other before . by guerrilla to death threatened States? United by body- protected most of them No. guards. your fami- you any or member 4. Have arrested, accused, charged,

ly ever been APPENDIX B detained, convicted and interrogated, Department U.S. of Justice sentenced, your coun- imprisoned or including the country, try or other Review Immigration Executive Office for United States? Immigration United States Court No. SILVA, Respon- MARINA Matter LUZ dent subjected to torture you being fear 5. Do (severe pain or suf- physical or mental Proceedings In REMOVAL rape or other sexual

fering, including Transcript Hearing abuse) country your home you if return? country other MIRANDA, Immigra- Before PEDRO Yes. Judge tion tortured already psychologically

I Date: December that, they I found out by FARC when Miami, Place: Florida objective, I was military me a declared FREE REPORT- Transcribed STATE if I know that at 1999. shot on October INC., ING, Maryland Annapolis, psychological I to Colombia go back Haza Interpreter: Lanell Official knowing again, all over torture will start later, to be find me sooner or Language: Spanish will always killed and FARC tortured and Appearances: does. Immigration and Naturalization For the Question [Response See Addendum. Gail Schwartz Service: 1] Pro se Respondent: For the happen to you think would do What THE RECORD FOR JUDGE country from you you returned subjected Miami, 13, 2002, be Florida. you claim would which December Explain detail These are re- persecution? Judge am Pedro Miranda. Luz Mari- information or documentation in the case of provide proceedings moval statement, if re- your Silva, available. Present is the support na 79 344 105. se; represented pro the Service spondent, as FARC sentenced I would killed (phonetic attorney Schwartz by trial Gail me. in. proceedings Spanish in the lan- sp.) JUDGE TO MS. SILVA interpreter Court Ms. La- guage through Okay, you so don’t want to get an attor- sp.). here for a (phonetic nell Haza We’re ney? respondent’s hearing application in the MS. SILVA TO JUDGE removal, asylum withholding of relief un- No. torture convention. der the JUDGE TO MS. SILVA MS. SILVA

JUDGE TO Ma’am, today here for a hearing we’re Okay. Please your right stand and raise case, your asylum you ready you truth, hand. Do swear to tell the proceed? truth, nothing truth, whole but the so help you God? TO JUDGE MS. SILVA MS. SILVA TO JUDGE Yes. TO MS. SILVA

JUDGE Yes, I swear. try to you get attorney, Did ma’am? JUDGE TO MS. SILVA TO MS. SILVA JUDGE Now, Sit down. you told at previous hearings that if you represented yourself Yes. you have right to present witnesses JUDGE TO MS. SILVA your documents in you case. Do have youDo have an attorney? you documents that want the Court to MS. SILVA TO JUDGE look at? No. MS. SILVA TO JUDGE JUDGE TO MS. SILVA No. Why not? JUDGE TO MS. SILVA MS. SILVA TO JUDGE Okay. right You can sit there and testi- I contacted several of attorneys fy there, from right. all list, list, around the they Service’s MS. HAZA TO JUDGE my couldn’t take case because were I requested for busy. get too her to Then I closer to the contacted other attor- neys interpreter, Honor, Your attorneys you. and these thank were charging me money. too much I have here a copy JUDGE TO MS. SILVA of the letters from who sent me Now, Q. your name is Luz Marina Sil- answers my request. about I don’t know va? you if need to see that. A. Yes. JUDGE TO MS. SILVA Q. You are Colombian? You have to Well, them, I don’t need you to see have your voice, use ma’am. a right to an attorney, I give you can’t one. only

I can give you A. Yes. get you time to one If, you know, want. if you don’t have Q. you? How old are an attorney you then will have to repre- A. I’m yourself. sent you What do want to do? Q. you Are married or single? you

Are ready to represent yourself today? MS. SILVA TO A. Single. JUDGE

Yes. Q. youDo children? Q. apartment? rent the Did A. No. Now, you come A.

Q. when did Yes. States? United Q. why you only stay So did a month I came into the Unit- A. The last time you problem a half if had had a in 8, 2000. was March ed States Colombia? to the United States

Q. you Had been watching already A. I started off Well that? previous to with, already over I things had been spent Christmas and New Year’s A. Yes. here, anguish. I felt I had an aunt back Q. many times? How gravely thought ill and I Balta who was A. Twice. that I could enough elapsed time had Q. the first time? When was back, go things might be different. A. ’99. June Colombia, Q. you And where did live come here on June Q. Why you did Balta?

10, ’99? A. Yes.

A. As a tourist. Q. long you had lived in Balta? How Q. you stay? long How did My A. whole life.

A. month. One Q. you belong any, any groups Did back to Colombia? Q. you Then went organizations Colombia? Um-hum, yes.

A. Yes, always. A. you come back?

Q. And when did Q. What? 21, ’99. A. November Yes, belonged I to the conservative A. always belonged had Q. group. My of that visit? purpose was the What lately I was group, the conservative attempt I an Colom- A. Because had Antanna Mockus. working with sp.). (phonetic from the FARC bia Q. is Antanna Mockus? Who Q. why you come here? So did mayor A. At this moment he is my coun- stayed if I A. Because had Bogota. city something hap- would have try probably me, it the easiest and and was pened Q. you worked for you do mean What country. way to come to this fastest him? a tourist visa?

Q. you Did come with visionary party. party, A. For his for him. politics did A. Yes. you politics did do Q. Since when you stay?

Q. long How him? A a month. A. little over ’94. A. More or less since you

Q. you stay with when Who did mayor Q. long How has he been that time? came Bogota? A. The second time? years. At moment two A. this

Q. Yes. mayor in ’94? Q. running for Was he apartment in Miami A. I was A. Yes. Beach.

Q. Q. you win? in charge people? Did he Were Yes, in ’95. A. he won Only corporation. A. No. long mayor has he Q. how been the So Q. you speak publicly? Did of Bogota? A. around people With me to be No, mayor A. he was from ’95 using front of an a microphone, audience ’97, resigned he and then before ’97 no, only around me. running presidency for the

because he was Q. job paying Did have a in Bogo- republic. ta? Q. presidency He ran for of Colom-

bia? A. A restaurant.

A. Yes Q. You owned a restaurant? Q. party? of what On behalf A. Yes. Visionary. A. Q. What was the name of the restau- Q. you a par- So were member of that rant?

ty? A. Tol (phonetic Medrial Mebianta sp.) A. Yes. Q. you Were a sole owner? Q. thought you I were a member of the A. party? conservative Yes. Always.

A. Q. And this restaurant is in Bogota? Q. Both then? A. Yes. Yes, always A. people who belong Q. you open When did it? visionary be, party can can from A. More or less around 1991. party, either stronger parties two Colombia, party the liberal the conser- Q. Okay. it open? Is still party. They belong

vative can to the vi- Yes, A. my mother has it. sionary party groups. and be with both Q. youDo still own it?

Q. how many So times Mr. has Mockus run public office? A. Yes. A. mayor’s Twice for the office and one Q. Why you come to the United

for the presidency. States, why you seeking asylum, ma’am?

Q. you help And did him out in all campaigns? three of these A. I Because had an attempt against Yes, A. always. life, my the FARC tried to kill me before came over here. Q. your job What was campaign? Well,

A. organize Q. help brigade, you talk That was before came No- they so would vote party, for the vember of ’99? go headquarters listen A. Yes. party’s platform. Q. attempt, When was this when? Q. you occupy any Did particular posi- A. It happened October tion title in campaigns? No,

A. no. Q. happened? What this, any of you report restaurant, Q. Okay, did leaving my A. I was calls, shooting to the the note or the these house, my mother’s my inis restaurant police? floor. the first house on A. No. Okay.

Q. Q. Why not? my apartment way to my A. I was day attempt A. Because on the in a restaurant, men arrived two from the evening, p.m., at 7 7 in the evening on that people, and these people, motorcycle, two my apartment me at they called car and my came close men these two think about you don’t dare even told me did not The bullet into the car. they shot That is a well known report. making in to the back it went hit me because in Colombia. fact ask- why I am here that is And window. asylum.

ing Q. you? called Who people, do these two A. One man. Q. were Who know? Q. Identified?

A. No. No, no, them. any never A. you, shoot they go shoot Q. Why Q. did too scared to you So were you know? you, police? do A. Yes. I days before no idea but

A. I have me anon- calling receiving they were you came to Q. you — did was So what phone calls. ymous month? the next the United States you? calling Q. Who was Yes, in November. A. up to November always. Q. one Between

A. Different that — problems? other doing you had had we were where neighborhoods a condolence I received help brigade No, no, no. A. note. when, in Bogota you returned Q. So a condolence you receive

Q. When did 2000? January of note? A. Yes. the at- weeks before A. Around three any further you have Q. Okay, and did

tempt. Bogota? returned to you after problems say? the note Q. did What A. Yes. peace rest Luz Marina Silva

A. Q. happened? What doing shouldn’t be doing what she tele- again once began I to receive A. it. signed and the FARC wrong place group. the urban calls from phone letter? have that condolence Q. youDo had been previous the calls Q. Before calls identified? these anonymous. Were A. No. anonymous. way, The same A. No. it? Q. is Where they say? Q. did What it, you To tell disappeared. it A. I lost once, pro- don’t already A. missed We going that I was thought I the truth never 9th, we on the missed again. us We And one voke attempt. victim of to be the time, we’re to miss second going things that. never rude, A' you. very very phone to kill ob- calls that I I going received was told that scene. my family always exploited had the Colom- people. bian supposedly And was the mean, they did don’t Q. you Did —what attempt one who suffered the that the did provoke again? us get this me because it was easier to provoke provoke A. To means—-not to get me than to my family to members of there, if I them means not had bodyguards. that have not to return. already come here Q. you this, do How know all how do Q. you January After returned you know this? something Is this many threatening you calls did 2000 how on, you’re speculating you or how do know you receive until left two months later? this? always They daily, A. were all the A. why way That’s —that’s time. they had to revenge my family. take on Q. Always anonymous? said, said, phone they they one call A. Yes. during one of phone those calls is that this Q. you way Aside from calls they have found to revenge take problems during other this my family time? on body- because guards. A. No. Q. your family your Is that father’s Q. When was the last time that your side or mother’s side? in politics?

were involved My A. father’s. A. Before attempt. Q. phone When did this call explaining Q. long' That’s a could be —'that all this occur?

time, when? When was the you last time participated? A. attempt, they Before the say would things. some days

A. A few attempt before the October, arrived, since I since I returned Q. yours This cousin of who is now the States, in the United August, September, secretary mayor Bogota, has she October, more or less. had problems? Q. anybody working you Did else with They always A. anony- have received problems? have calls, phone always. mous In Bogota in they always whole Colombia are calling No, A. none. sending letters to people. terrorize Q. You only were the one? Q. people get So a lot of letters and Yes, A. my family what it is is that phone calls? always has politics. been involved in A. Yes. If the person that’s involved Q. So, so many have other families some group or is the first time Why Colombia. you singled would out? doing something they are not in—that Well, cousin, A. I have a Alicia Alhanio they don’t person want this to do for what- (phonetic sp.) completely and she’s ever reasons. visionary immersed in the party, and I Q. Apart you from all that stated to- always helped her. Currently she is day, did anything happen you else secretary office, mayor for the Colombia? right Mockus now at this time. In one of calls, the telephone anonymous tele- A. No. you happen In Colombia mean? you do think would

Q. What back to you if went Colombia? you TO MS. SCHWARTZ JUDGE already They killed. warned A. I’d be Q. In Colombia. January. I returned me when A. No. about these Q. you police Did tell Q. anybody you Did ever call in Colom- calls? phone latest you to bia and ask collaborate with them? A. No. A. No. Q. Why not? Q. your in her Does mother still live just that is not done. Peo- A. Because home above the restaurant? go report make Colombia.

ple cannot A. Yes. Ma’am, Q. government Colombia guerrillas. war in an all out

is Q. open And the restaurant is still Colombia, Mr. Orebet president business? very effec- sp.) apparently has (phonetic A. Yes. Well, mean, are I—I how campaign. tive family don’t file— help people Q. Is that a restaurant? going happening? tell them what’s don’t A. I don’t understand. one is called on A. Because when your family it? Q. Does run is not make and one told do

phone My my mother does. And A. this, that, one do not do do not do report,- by the of that restau- supported earnings afraid, people it because doesn’t do rant, my siblings. are afraid Colombia. TO MS. SILVA JUDGE say? Q. Anything else that want to brothers, Wait, male your brothers? A. No MS. TO SCHWARTZ JUDGE TO JUDGE MS. SILVA Ms. Schwartz? Four. TO JUDGE

MS. SCHWARTZ TO MS. SCHWARTZ JUDGE Honor, Yes, for questions Your a few Okay. her, you. thank TO MS. SILVA MS. SCHWARTZ TO MS. SCHWARTZ MS. SILVA all brothers Q. you your Do four of Ma’am, you buy your Q. when did currently live Colombia? did in Miami Or when apartment Beach? A. Yes. Beach? apartment an in Miami you rent you any sisters? Q. And do buy In November

A. I did one. And first time I arrived. also the when A. No. a apartment I came over. that It’s father, still Co- Q. your And is- he and bath. It’s a room with a kitchen hotel. lombia? long lease for? Q. And how was the A. No. No, monthly. A. your Q. father? Where anybody Q. Okay, time A. He died. you money? you call and ask MS. SILVA TO TO MS. JUDGE JUDGE SCHWARTZ your Anything you do in Q. say, do brothers Colom- else that want What ma’am? bia? MS. SILVA TO JUDGE much, Well, truly. they don’t do

A. No.

Q. does that mean? What JUDGE TO MS. SILVA work, the other one A. One doesn’t has job they my all live in temporary Ma’am, why you I realize were nervous her. mother’s house with living about in Colombia but I can’t find you’ve persecuted been I there. So Q. they any problems Have had going deny your applications. am Do anybody? the FARC you understand? No, A. none of them. MS. SILVA TO JUDGE mean, Q. family Go—I this was Yes. thing why your wouldn’t come after JUDGE TO MS. SILVA brothers? right appeal You will have the They politics.

A. were not involved in I explain you and will how to do that Q. your family You said that whole appeal give you and will papers perceived being members of the conser- you’ll Okay, need to fill out. understand? party you part vative and because MS. SILVA TO JUDGE family they you. wanted get Yes. A. Yes. JUDGE TO MS. SILVA

Q. your about What brothers? Okay, if I deny your applications now No, my A. brothers have never been you right have the to designate the coun- in politics. say my involved I When try you where want to be sent. You don’t uncles, cousins, I meant my father’s cous- designate country. you have to If don’t My ins. family. father’s side of the My do it I will it you. you do Do wish to brothers have in poli- never been involved designate a country? tics. MS. SILVA TO JUDGE

MS. SCHWARTZ TO JUDGE No, I don’t know. just have one or two questions, more Your Honor. JUDGE RENDERS ORAL DECISION MS. SCHWARTZ TO MS. SILVA JUDGE TO MS. SILVA Q. day On the of October Okay, designate the Court will Colom- restaurant, were your followed from cor- you bia. Ma’am as I’ve told I’ve denied rect? your application because, you Yes, A. I suppose. know, general other than the conditions of Q. this, Okay, and has the restaurant instability and violence Colombia I don’t your or targeted mother’s house ever been you position see that are in worse than by the FARC? anybody else in that country. you Do No,

A. never. understand? MS. SCHWARTZ TO JUDGE MS. SILVA TO JUDGE

Okay, I nothing have further. Um-hum. JUDGE TO MS. SILVA JUDGE TO MS. SILVA you money If appeal. pay don’t have you right have a may I mistaken again provide you to the Board of I appeal my attorney decision will Church, Falls Vir- Immigration Appeals of attorneys represent with a list who can appeal that it must apply ginia. you If do you charge. you at little or Do no under- directly days with be filed within 30 stand? 13,

Board, January on or before that MS. SILVA TO JUDGE understand? you 2003. Do Um-hum, you. thank MS. TO JUDGE SILVA TO JUDGE MS. SILVA Um-hum.

JUDGE TO MS. SILVA very impor- Okay. that it is Remember you a fee your appeal tant file with or

Now, yes? that a you have—is January a fee on or with waiver before JUDGE MS. SILVA TO you you again If 2003. do not I will warn Yes. you my order final. Do will become JUDGE TO MS. SILVA understand? Now, you going give appeal I’m MS. SILVA TO JUDGE fill have to out and file. you form that Yes. filed, said, with, Ias appeal That has to be appeal And fee. payment JUDGE TO MS. SILVA money pay you if have that fee don’t you my And if file it then don’t order form, you file for a fee waiver then have to final. becomes you time. giving which am also this you Do you

Do understand? understand? MS. SILVA TO JUDGE TO JUDGE MS. SILVA Yes. Um-hum. TO JUDGE MS. SILVA

JUDGE TO MS. SILVA you ma’am? any questions, Do Yes? SILVA TO JUDGE MS. MS. TO JUDGE SILVA No.

Yes. TO SILVA JUDGE MS. JUDGE TO MS. SILVA Now, luck, ma’am, Okay. appeal Okay, good you has to be re- if decide to the fee or with a fee appeal. ceived either with file January If waiver on or before TO JUDGE SCHWARTZ MS. you file without the appeál waiver Schwartz, you, And Ms. do the Govern- the fee it will be as haven’t then ment, waives appeal? it will become final. my filed order youDo understand? SCHWARTZ TO JUDGE MS.

MS. TO JUDGE SILVA Yes, Your Honor. Yes. FOR THE RECORD JUDGE

JUDGE TO MS. SILVA Case closed. Now, right to have the you’ll continue you out in attorney help have an this case HEARING CLOSED filing and of this including preparation the 1260

APPENDIX C than longer permitted. Removability, in STATES DEPARTMENT UNITED fact, by has been established clear and OF JUSTICE convincing through evidence her sworn EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR testimony. The Court will turn IMMIGRATION application asylum, withholding for of re- REVIEW moval, and relief under the Torture Con- vention, only which are the remain- issues UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ing in the case. COURT The record before me contains the Miami, Florida Reports Country Asy- and the Profile of A 79 344 105 File No.: Country lum Claims and Conditions pre- pared by the United States of Department December Colombia, country State for the of which SILVA, Matter of LUZ MARINA as country advised to conditions in that as Respondent of the that it date was issued. IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS Attorney The regulations General’s con- cerning of withholding removal 237(a)(1)(B). Section CHARGE: 241(b)(3) pursuant to Sections 208 and Asylum, withholding APPLICATIONS: applicable the Act are to this case. Re- removal, and relief under Torture Con- garding withholding of removal under Sec- vention. 241(b)(3), tion applicant must meet the BEHALF ON OF Pro RESPONDENT: proof burden of set forth at 8 C.F.R. Sec- se tion The 208.16. alien has to establish or ON BEHALF OF life freedom Gail would be threatened in SERVICE: Schwartz, country Esquire proposed Assistant District removal because race, religion, nationality, Counsel member- ship particular in a group social ORAL THE DECISION OF opinion. Her life or freedom shall be IMMIGRATION found to be threatened if likely it is more JUDGE than she will persecuted be- cause of one of these five enumerated respondent is a 48-year-old native grounds. citizen Colombia who was admitted to the United States on or March about To eligibility asylum, establish for a visitor pleasure, as and who applicant must-meet of proof burden beyond remained the United States prescribed in 8 C.F.R. Section 208.13. Immigration date authorized regulation Said applicant states that (hereinafter Naturalization Service has to eligibility refugee establish as a Service). 101(a)(42)(A) defined Section of the Act. testimony, Her light credible in of the previous In a hearing before this Court general country conditions in her of na- respondent, oath, under admitted to tionality, may be sufficient to sustain a allegations the factual in the Notice to proof burden of without further corrobora- admissions, Appear. Based on her tion. finds that Court she is removable as 237(a)(1)(B) charged under Section An applicant shall be found to be a Immigration and Nationality Act as having refugee past because of persecution if she remained the United States a time can establish that past she has suffered

1261 or if the pre- pre- of the five such consideration evidence of one persecution because will and that she sented indicates that she be tortured grounds, viously enumerated in the removal. country to or avail of See 8 C.F.R. unwilling is or to return unable 208.13(c)(1). protection country of the Section of the herself persecution be- she suffered such where by Torture is defined as act which persecution. of that cause pain suffering, physical severe or whether mental, intentionally found to a or on a applicant An shall be have' is inflicted 208.18(a)(1). persecution if person. fear of future See 8 C.F.R. Section well-founded establish, a first, that she has fear pain can The or in- suffering she severe must be country in of of her because flicted on or persecution applicant person a third previously enumerated one, of the five purposes, specifically, one for one of four second, a grounds, confession, that there is reasonable or obtaining for information a possibility actually suffering per- of some two, punishing for for an act or committed there, and, if return secution she were to committed, suspected having of been third, unwilling is or that she unable three, coercion, or, four, for or intimidation protection of the to or avail herself return for reason based on discrimination of fear. country of because of such addition, any kind. In order to consti- torture, tute the act must directed be evaluating applicant has whether custody a in the against person offender’s proof of the Immi- her burden sustained physical or control. See C.F.R. Section gration Judge require shall not her to 208.18(a)(6). Further, pain or suffer- singled be provide evidence that she will by must inflicted or in the insti- ing be individually ap- persecution out acquies- of gation or with consent or pattern a plicant that there is establishes or public person cence of a official other nationality country in her of practice or a acting capacity. C.F.R. an official See 8 persons of simi- persecution groups of 208.18(b)(1). Section because of larly applicant situated five enumerated previously one of the of removal applicant withholding The grounds, applicant and the also establishes under Torture Convention bears inconclusion and identification with his likely it of is more proving burden that her groups persons such fear such if re- than not that she will be tortured upon return is reasonable. persecution country of removal. proposed moved 208.16(b). 8 C.F.R. See Section to that pre- is a similar burden This Immigration Ap- by the Board of scribed today sup- respondent The testified I & peals Mogharrabi, in the Matter applications for relief. She port (BIA 1987) where the Board N Dec. 439 indicates that she and whole persecu- applicant’s stated that the conser- always been member of must be detailed and plausible, tion claim she has party vative in Colombia and that testimony may, coherent. alien’s own in Bogota, lived her entire life Colombia cases, only evidence avail- some restaurant, is still where owns which testimony and can suffice that the able run being is at this time operating, and believable, sufficiently consistent and de- mother. testified respondent’s She and coherent provide plausible tailed politics sup- as a that she was involved the basis fear. account of for her mayor Bogota, Mr. porter present first participated Antanna Mockus. She applicant An shall also be considered for candidacy for the support of Mr. withholding of removal under Mockus’ eligibility for mayor 1994. Mr. Mockus won requests Torture if she Convention mayor and was the until he re- cause she was told not to do so and it is election dangerous to signed participate report as a candidate for the these incidences to police according presidency respondent respondent. in 1997. The also the to the Nevertheless, candidacy respondent at that was unsuc- decided to worked which respondent Bogota cessful. The then worked for leave and come to the United go mayoralty Moekus’ at the of which she did on Mr. second States November is, Bogota. campaign previously He this 1999 as a tourist. had won She been stated, 10,1999, Bogota, actual mayor she here on June also as a tourist and respondent, Colombia. remained one month. The when she came in November of 1999 respondent any The did not hold official stayed for a little over a month before campaign in Mr. Moekus’ or in the position returning Bogota hoping things speak publicly she party support nor did were better. She did indicate that she any political party. of Mr. Moekus for She requested any help had from govern- helped organizing help brigades, ment of the United States when she came and, talking people, general and other here November 21st of 1999 or indicated candidacy. party work for the and the As anybody problems that she had in Co- stated, she was not a leader nor did she respondent lombia. The returned to Co- occupy just any particular position. January lombia in of 2000 and remained respondent The states she has there for another two months before com- problems in- Colombia because ing to the United States the last time on in politics volvement and also because her March 2000. She has remained here family supporting entire was known to be since then. party. of the conservative She states that The respondent indicates that after she having problems she started towards the returned to Colombia in November of 2000 end of 1999. She indicates she re- hoping different, that things would be calls, several threatening anony- ceived receiving daily anonymous started calls mous, indicating stop that she should what telling her that she provoke should not doing she was and that on October 9th of caller and that Again she would be killed. leaving 1999 as she was her restaurant and report she did not these calls to the au- way car, apartment on her to her in her thorities but decided to leave Colombia along motorcycle two men came side and come to the United States as stated in and fired shots at her car. does not She March of 2000. know who police these men were but said they were members FARC because of respondent’s The mother remains Co- the calls that she had receiving. been She running lombia her restaurant and she has had also received a note condolence about four brothers who also remain in that previous three weeks shooting country an- supported by and are the same nouncing sympathy with her passing own restaurant and respondent’s live with the saying wrong she had been in the Nothing happened any mother. has place at the wrong allegedly time and these members nor have there been signed by guerrilla group known as the attempts respondent’s on the business The FARC. Court asked if she had nor other reported problems. this note and she that she respondent indicates has further states that she has a calls, lost it. She did not report any of the cousin who was even more active than her card, the receipt of the attempt support nor the on in mayor Bogota, Mr. her life to the Moekus, authorities in Colombia be- and that actually she is the secre- failed show that she for qualifies cousin has fore that this indicates tary. She threatening calls and in fact the relief that she seeks. The Court will received also in re- many Colombia that deny asylum states for as application as well and letters and threatening calls ceived application withholding for of removal the way terrorizing common of a this was requires higher proof. of which standard people. that respon- The Court further finds any has failed to show that there is dent respondent that re- only

The incident perse- that past possibility as likelihood will be qualify which could of she ferred to of shooting be October if cution would returns to as that tortured she Colombia respondent and indicates 1999 9th of previously in turn has The been defined. shot her nor not know who that she does following will be issued. orders why or way identified who any in other has ORDER except explaining that she shot for

she was and a calls condo- anonymous received had IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that although she respondent, note. The lence withholding for and of applications support politi- in may have been active removal denied. mayor Bogo- candidacy of the actual cal re- IT IS ORDERED that FURTHER leadership in ta, any in fact not in role was de- lief under the Torture Convention be explained has other nor she politics nied. singled out why she will be other reason IT ORDERED that re- IS FURTHER family whole was saying than deported to Co- spondent be removed party and that conservative member example. lombia. being an She was made she has nobody else been speculates CERTIFICATE PAGE everybody in her because

harmed However, she indicates bodyguards. has hereby certify pro- that the attached Bogota four live that her brothers PEDRO MI- ceeding before JUDGE had no problems. RANDA, of: in the matter recognizes that con- Although the Court MARINA SILVA LUZ violent, are in fact in Colombia ditions under suffers these everybody Colombia A 344 105 79 violence and criminal conditions of general Miami, Florida supplied has not activity. respondent accurate, transcript of verbatim that she was either any evidence show by the Executive tape provided cassette in the that she has a past nor persecuted Immigration for Review Office being persecuted fear of well-founded for transcript thereof original this is previously the five future Immi- Additionally, file of the Executive Office grounds. she al- enumerated explained has Review. ways Bogota gration lived could not have lived another why she Cochran, Tran- Elizabeth M. /s/ if in fact felt threat- of Colombia she part scriber addition, city Bogota. in the ened Inc. Reporting, Free State never, that she felt she Claire Road Cape 1324 St. Colombia, gave authorities danger Maryland 21401 Annapolis, help protect her. opportunity to (301)261-1902 respondent finds that the there- The Court March date)

(completion

By of this submission CERTIFICATE

PAGE, Contractor certifies BEC/T-147, 4-channel

Sony transcriber or C,

equivalent, para- as described Section contract,

graph C.3.3.2 of was used to

transcribe the Record of Proceeding paragraph.

shown in the above

Joseph THORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SERVICES,

ALL RESTORATION

INC., al., et Defendants-

Appellees.

No. 05-11233.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

9,May

Case Details

Case Name: Luz Marina Silva v. U.S. Attorney General

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: May 5, 2006

Citation: 448 F.3d 1229

Docket Number: 19-10525

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.