Case: 18-12159 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 Page: 1 of 19 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12159 ________________________ Agency No. A206-832-397 GABRIELA ANDREINA CALABRIA MEDINA, YESBER ALIRIO MARIN HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 12, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12159 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 Page: 2 of 19 Petitioner Gabriela Andreina Calabria Medina, a native and citizen of Venezuela, appeals a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her claims of asylum and withholding of removal. According to Medina, she was repeatedly harassed and threatened in Venezuela. She ascribes this mistreatment to her political activism. The BIA rejected Medina’s application for relief because it concluded that the abuse she suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Medina’s petition for review. I. Factual Background1 Medina and her husband, Yesber Alirio Marin Hernandez, were political activists in Venezuela before coming to the United States in 2014. In June 2010, Hernandez joined Primero Justicia, a group of young professionals advocating for change in Venezuela. He was made a “parochial leader” at some point, though he never became a high-ranking member of the organization. Medina never officially joined the group but was an active participant in many political campaigns in which Primero Justicia was involved. Most of her work consisted of public activism, such as attending marches, distributing promotional materials, and engaging with potential voters. 1 We derive this summary primarily from Medina’s and Hernandez’s testimony before the immigration judge (“IJ”) on April 27, 2017. Where there are inconsistencies, we have adopted the IJ’s factual description, so long as it is supported by the record. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e must affirm the decision of the Immigration Judge if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.”) (citation omitted). 2 Case: 18-12159 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 Page: 3 of 19 Medina’s and Hernandez’s activities put them at odds with the Venezuelan government and its supporters. They were consistently targeted by family and stranger alike. Because these episodes are the basis of Medina’s appeal, our discussion warrants additional detail about them. A. Threats From the Community Hernandez was from a part of Venezuela that was largely pro-government. His political views made him a target, particularly after he started dating (and later married) Medina, who was from a part of the country that was more supportive of the opposition. Pro-government supporters yelled at and harassed Medina and Hernandez when they were in the area or when the couple was participating in a political activity. But while the interactions sometimes became tense—at one point these supporters damaged Medina’s car—Medina and Hernandez were never physically harmed. Hernandez’s family was not spared punishment for their son’s activities. In March 2013, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals