Edward Henry Lombana-Cano v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 7, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-12418
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A095-264-557
EDWARD HENRY LOMBANA-CANO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 7, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Henry Lombana-Cano, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions

-- 1 of 3 --

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his
application for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act. INA § 208; 8
U.S.C. § 1158. The Board vacated the order of the immigration judge that had
granted Lombana-Cano asylum as a victim of past persecution who also had a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion. We deny
Lombana-Cano’s petition.
Substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that Lombana-Cano
did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his political opinion. The record does not compel a finding that any
past abuse was inflicted due to Lombana-Cano’s political opinion. Lombana-Cano
testified that, while he was completing a mandatory social service internship, the
Revolutionary Forces tried to recruit him to provide medical treatment for its
members and to support their cause. “‘Persecution on account of . . . political
opinion . . . is persecution on account of the victim’s political opinion, not the
persecutor’s.” Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437–38 (11th Cir. 2004)
(quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S. Ct. 812, 816 (1992)).
Lombana-Cano’s argument that the Revolutionary Forces pursued him because he
worked for the government could support an inference of persecution because of an
imputed political opinion, but “the evidence equally supports an inference that he
was threatened simply because of his refusal to provide [medical] services, and the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

record does not ‘compel’ this Court to hold otherwise.” Rodriguez Morales v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007).
Lombano-Cano’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --