Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

158 Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional in assessment of the evidence. The appellant may well have had her employer’s political opinions imputed upon her. It is surprising that although the IJ found her credible, the interpretation of her testimony was held against her claim. The fact that her detention was used as a means to locate Preincar’s bosses means that she was within the scope of interest by the police. Similarly in the case of Luis Francisco Rojas Colina v US Attorney General , No. 18-12317, 762 Fed. Appx. 973, 11 th Cir., March 15, 2019, the appellant was found not to meet the standard of proof regarding nexus to political opinion. Rojas Colina worked as a Field Supervisor for Samsung in Caracas, Venezuela. He had been involved in political parties opposed to the Venezuelan government since 2004. He joined the Primero Justicia political party before changing to Un Nuevo Tiempo party in 2006. He was politically active with Un Nuevo Tiempo through 2013. In 2013 Samsung and the Venezuelan government announced that they planned to open an assembly plant and service centers as a joint venture, Rojas Colina was in charge of hiring. He was targeted by a government telecomminications labour union that wanted to instruct him on who to hire. When he refused, they threatened him through phone calls, text messages, and messages left with his secretary. They mentioned his schedule and his brother and sister, and his political activity. They accused him of trying to make the Venezuelan government look bad because he was a member of the opposition. He alleges that they attempted to kidnap him, he was hit twice by a government vehicle while he was driving home and chased. The car was damaged and he suffered minor injuries. He tried to report the incident to the authorities but the police told would not receive his complaint because he did not have a name or tag number for the other vehicle. Afterwards, he received a phone call in which they threatened to finish the job next time. He resigned from Samsung and left the following months. The threats ended but he believed that he would be on the union’s radar if he returned. The IJ found that he testified credibly but that he had not established that the threats and vehicular attack were on account of his political opinion. The IJ stated that he was harassed and threatened because he refused to hire union employees. While the union may have referred to his political activities to threaten him, the IJ believed that he was targeted “exclusively due to his position with Samsung” out of the motivation to have him hire union members, not because of his political opinion. The BIA upheld the IJ’s negative decision, noting that Rojas Colina offered “only speculation that his imputed political opinion was a central motivation” for the threats and attacks. Rojas Colina appealed. The Court of Appeals noted that he had not been subjected to threats until after he was given hiring authority at Samsung and that his testimony confirmed that the goa of the threats was to influence his hiring decisions. The Court states that there threats escalated after he refused to obey the union in hiring and that the union never ordered him to stop his political activities or denounce his allegiance to the opposition party. The Court of Appeals confirmed the BIA’s assessment that Rojas Colina’s belief in a central political motive was based on speculation and that it was equally plausible that the union members had no political motive whatsoever. The appeal was denied. In this case, the Court fails to address the link between corruption and power. Where