Gloria Virginia Mateo-Nolasco v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-12242
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

Agency No. A208-688-618

GLORIA VIRGINIA MATEO NOLASCO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________

(May 7, 2020)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 1 of 7

2

Gloria Mateo Nolasco (Mateo) seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of her application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because
substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Mateo did not establish
past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or a nexus between any
mistreatment and her political opinion, we deny the petition.
I.
Mateo and her daughter Karen Gabriel Mateo, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection in November 2015. The
Department of Homeland Security served them with notices to appear, charging
that they were removable for not having valid entry or travel documents at the time
of their application for admission. Mateo conceded removability as charged and
filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal based on her political
opinion, and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
and
Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
In her application and at a subsequent hearing before an immigration judge
(IJ), Mateo explained that she left Guatemala after receiving an anonymous letter
threatening to kidnap her daughter if she did not pay three thousand quetzals.
Earlier, she had received several anonymous phone calls threatening to kidnap her
daughter if she did not give the caller money. Mateo did not go to the drop-off
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 2 of 7

3

location that the caller gave her, and the phone calls stopped after she told the
caller that she did not have the money that he demanded.
When she found the anonymous letter on her doorstep, Mateo was afraid
because she and her daughter lived alone. She did not call the police because the
anonymous villain said that he would kill her if she did. Besides, Mateo testified,
police in Guatemala are ineffective against the violence that is common there,
including gang violence, robberies, and kidnappings.
In support of her application, Mateo submitted affidavits from her mother-
in-law, brother-in-law, and a neighbor, all of whom had spoken to her about the
anonymous threatening letter that she received. Mateo also submitted the 2016
Human Rights Report for Guatemala, which reported widespread institutional
corruption, including in the police; security force involvement in kidnappings,
human trafficking, and extortion; and problems with gang activity and societal
violence, including violence against women. The report also noted problems in
Guatemala with gangs recruiting children “for purposes of stealing, transporting
contraband, prostitution, and conducting illegal drug activities”; commercial sexual
exploitation of children; sexual harassment against women; and human trafficking.
The IJ issued an oral decision denying Mateo’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The IJ found that Mateo had not suffered
past persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 3 of 7

4

on her political opinion, imputed political opinion, or any other protected ground
under the INA, as required to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ
also found that she had not shown that it was more likely than not that she would
be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official if she returned to
Guatemala, as required to be eligible for CAT relief.
Mateo appealed to the BIA, arguing that she suffered persecution based on
the threats she received from men who had the ability to act on the threats, and that
she would more likely than not suffer future persecution based on the past threats
and the conditions in Guatemala. She also argued that her flight from sexual
violence in Guatemala “was an expression of [her] political opinion regarding
female autonomy.” Mateo did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief.
The BIA dismissed Mateo’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ’s reasoning and
concluding that Mateo had shown only that she was the victim of private criminal
violence, and had not shown that the threats that she received were motivated by
her political opinion or an imputed political opinion. Mateo now seeks review of
the BIA’s decision.
II.
This Court generally reviews the BIA’s order as the agency’s final
judgment. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016).
“Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 4 of 7

5

BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement.” Id. In other words, where the BIA
affirms the IJ’s determinations for the IJ’s stated reasons, “we review the IJ’s
analysis as if it were the Board’s.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001).
We review the agency’s factual determination that an alien has not shown
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution under the substantial
evidence test. See Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.
2013); Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1286. Under this “highly deferential” test, we are
required to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s
decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The agency’s
factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We must
affirm those determinations as long as they are “supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Forgue
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Al Najjar, 257
F.3d at 1284).
To show that she is eligible for asylum, an alien must establish that she was
persecuted in the past or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in her home
country “on account of” her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 5 of 7

6

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An alien seeking
asylum based on her political opinion must “present ‘specific, detailed facts
showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution’ on
account of such an opinion.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1287 (emphasis in the
original) (citation omitted).
An applicant for withholding of removal must show that her “life or freedom
would be threatened” in the country of removal because of a protected ground. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir.
2006). “The alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is ‘more likely than
not’ she will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned to her country.” Tan,
446 F.3d at 1375 (citation omitted). This is a higher evidentiary standard than
what is required to be eligible for asylum. Id. Thus, when an applicant fails to
make the required showing for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463
F.3d 1247, 1249 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006).
On the record before us, we cannot say that the evidence that Mateo
presented is “so compelling that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to
reach a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292. As
an initial matter, the anonymous threatening phone calls and letter that Mateo
received do not amount to past persecution. “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept,
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 6 of 7

7

requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.”
Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1232 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). Evidence that is “consistent with acts of private violence” or “that
merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity” is not
evidence of persecution based on a protected ground. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 1310.
Moreover, Mateo has not presented any evidence showing that past or future
mistreatment in Guatemala was or would be “at least in part, motivated by a
protected ground.” Tan, 446 F.3d at 1375. Based on Mateo’s description of the
calls and letter she received, the author never even mentioned her name, and made
no reference to Mateo’s actual or imputed political opinion. Instead, the caller and
writer only asked for money. Mateo has not shown that the anonymous criminal
was aware of any protected characteristic that would distinguish her from other
Guatemalans suffering from the violence and criminal activity there, much less that
his actions were motivated by a protected ground.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Mateo did not
establish past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or a nexus
between any mistreatment and her political opinion. Accordingly, Mateo has not
met her burden of showing that she is eligible for asylum or withholding of
removal, and we deny her petition.
PETITION DENIED.
Case: 19-12242 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 Page: 7 of 7