Humberto Rafael Mastrodomenico Araujo v. U.S. Atty

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 27, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-12586
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency Nos. A078-612-794,
A078-612-795
HUMBERTO RAFAEL MASTRODOMENICO-ARAUJO,
DUBIS DEL SOCORR GUARDIOLA DE MASTRODOMENICO,
HUMBERTO ANTONIO MASTRODOMENICO-GUARDIOLA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 27, 2010)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 4 --

Humberto Rafael Mastrodomenico-Araujo, a native and citizen of Colombia,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that
denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The
Board concluded that Mastrodomenico failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution if he returns to Colombia. We deny
Mastrodomenico’s petition.
Mastrodomenico testified about several incidents with the National
Liberation Party, but substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that the
incidents, even when considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of past
persecution. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir.
2009). Mastrodomenico, a member of the Atlantic Cattle Association, received an
unspecified number of “messages” from the National Liberation Party demanding
cattle and money, and later Mastrodomenico’s wife received a telephone call
inquiring about Mastrodomenico’s location, but these incidents constitute
harassment, not persecution. See Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229,
1237–38 (11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231
(11th Cir. 2005). Although Mastrodomenico testified he was kidnapped at a
guerrilla checkpoint, chained to a tree for six hours, and beaten with knees and the
butts of rifles when he refused to name other members of the Cattle Association or
2

-- 2 of 4 --

potential recruits, Mastrodomenico testified that he recovered from his minor
injuries after he saw a psychiatrist and used anti-inflammatory medication
prescribed by another doctor. See Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168,
1174 (11th Cir. 2008); Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1290–91 (11th
Cir. 2006).
Although Mastrodomenico argues that he suffered persecution “because of
his opinion and in part because of his social group,” substantial evidence supports
the finding of the Board that the incidents of alleged persecution were not
attributable to a protected ground. Mastrodomenico testified that the National
Liberation Party sought supplies and information about recruits to further their
cause. Evidence that Mastrodomenico was harassed because he refused to
cooperate with the guerrillas “does not constitute evidence of persecution based on
a statutorily protected ground.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1258
(11th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Mastrodomenico does not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Although Mastrodomenico and his
family fled to the United States after his kidnapping, Mastrodomenico’s wife and
children later returned to Colombia. Mastrodomenico asserts that the National
Liberation Party has a pattern of persecution against persons who are similarly
situated, but Mastrodomenico does not identify any similarly situated person who
3

-- 3 of 4 --

has been persecuted. Mastrodomenico withdrew from the Cattle Association and
the record does not compel a conclusion that the National Liberation Party “retains
an inclination to single [him] out.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231–32.
Mastrodomenico’s petition is DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --