Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04124/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04124-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Mareko Molathwa
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-4124

___________

Mareko Molathwa, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: October 18, 2004

 Filed: December 2, 2004 (Corrected: 1/26/05)

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Mareko Molathwa (Molathwa) petitions for review of a decision of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of Molathwa’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. For the

reasons set forth below, we deny Molathwa’s petition for review and affirm the BIA’s

decision.

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272 
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Molathwa, a native of Botswana, entered the United States in December 1997

as a nonimmigrant visitor. On November 9, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization

Service commenced removal proceedings, charging Molathwa as a nonimmigrant

who had remained in the United States longer than authorized. Molathwa admitted

the allegations, conceded the charge of removability, and filed an application for

asylum and withholding of removal. 

The IJ held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Molathwa’s claims for

asylum and withholding. At the hearing, Molathwa testified he had been married and

had a son in Botswana. Molathwa’s wife divorced him after Molathwa became

involved in a romantic relationship with another man, Berger Hartlebrakke (Berger).

In 1994, while Molathwa and Berger were living together in Botswana, police

officers entered Molathwa’s and Berger’s apartment without a warrant. The police

officers said they were doing “routine checks” for drugs, but never searched the

apartment for drugs. Molathwa claims the incident was merely a pretext to harass

him and Berger because of their sexual orientation. 

Molathwa testified two friends in Botswana experienced disparate treatment

due to their sexual orientation. Molathwa had a friend in Botswana whose cousins

beat him for having an affair with another man. Another friend, a South African, was

arrested and jailed for two days in Botswana for engaging in homosexual activity.

Molathwa speculates this friend, who later committed suicide, did so due to his

disgrace from being exposed as a homosexual. 

Molathwa held various teaching jobs in Botswana until he left for the United

States. Although Molathwa suspects people knew he was a homosexual, he never

experienced any problems at work. Molathwa believes his son lost friends in

Botswana because parents suspected Molathwa is a homosexual and told their

children not to play with Molathwa’s son because his father is evil. Molathwa does

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272 
-3-

not believe his family would harm him, but he fears others would. In Botswana,

according to Molathwa, homosexuals are blamed for diseases, like AIDS, and for

natural disasters, and Molathwa is afraid others would beat him to death to save

Botswana from epidemics. 

Molathwa did not file for asylum within the first year of his arrival in the

United States. Molathwa testified he did not want to accept his sexual orientation,

he did not know whom to trust, and he did not know homosexuals could apply for

asylum in the United States. Molathwa claims he learned in therapy that homosexuals

are protected under the laws of the United States. Molathwa submitted to the IJ a

letter from Douglas Jensen, Molathwa’s psychotherapist, who opines it is likely

Molathwa’s depressive symptoms may have contributed to his failure to file for

asylum in a timely manner.

 The IJ held Molathwa failed to file his asylum application in a timely manner

and failed to meet the extraordinary circumstances standard for excusing the untimely

filing of an asylum application. Alternatively, the IJ determined that, although he

found Molathwa’s testimony credible, Molathwa did not suffer past persecution or

have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his sexual orientation.

Based on the same evidence, the IJ denied Molathwa’s request for withholding of

removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, so the IJ’s

determination became the final agency decision. Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975,

980 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4)(ii)). 

Molathwa petitions for review of the BIA’s decision to deny his application for

asylum and withholding of removal. Molathwa argues the BIA erred in (1)

summarily affirming the IJ’s decision without a written opinion; (2) concluding

Molathwa failed to show changed circumstances sufficient to excuse his failure to file

a timely application for asylum; and (3) determining Molathwa failed to demonstrate

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272 
-4-

it is more likely than not that, if removed to Botswana, he would be subject to

persecution on account of his sexual orientation. 

II. DISCUSSION

Arguing the BIA misapplied its streamlining regulations when it affirmed the

IJ’s decision without a written opinion, Molathwa asks this court to remand his case

for reconsideration. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to

use its streamlined procedure. See Ngure, 367 F.3d at 988 (“[W]e do not agree that

the determination to streamline a particular case is generally amenable to judicial

review.”). Accordingly, the BIA’s decision to streamline Molathwa’s case is immune

from our review. Additionally, the BIA’s streamlined procedures do not violate due

process. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir. 2003). Even if the BIA’s

decision to streamline were reviewable, the BIA did not err in streamlining review of

Molathwa’s case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i) (permitting the BIA to affirm

without opinion when it determines the IJ’s decision is correct, any errors are

harmless or nonmaterial, and the issues are either squarely controlled by precedent

or are not so substantial that the case warrants issuance of a written opinion). 

Molathwa also argues the BIA erred in finding his application for asylum is

time-barred. To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must file his application within

one year of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). An applicant’s

failure to file a timely application for asylum will be excused only if he can show

“either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s

eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.”

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Molathwa contends his application for asylum is not

barred by the one-year deadline because of “changed circumstances.” Congress,

however, has barred judicial review of the BIA’s denial of asylum based on an

applicant’s failure to file a timely application. Section 1158(a)(3) provides “[n]o

court shall have jurisdiction” to review a determination by the Attorney General that

an application is untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Because Molathwa’s asylum claim

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272 
-5-

was denied as untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that

he did not demonstrate changed circumstances. Ngure, 367 F.3d at 989 (citing

Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2001)). 

Finally, Molathwa contends the BIA erred in denying his request for

withholding of removal. An application for withholding of removal is not subject to

a one-year filing deadline. Id. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s

determination an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal, and we may

overturn the BIA’s determination only if “the evidence was so compelling that no

reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

To be eligible for withholding of removal, Molathwa must show an objectively

established, clear probability he would suffer future persecution in Botswana because

of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion. Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004); Ngure, 367 F.3d

at 989. In other words, Molathwa must present evidence it is “more likely than not

that [he] would be subject to persecution” because of his membership in a particular

social group. Al Tawm, 363 F.3d at 744 (citation omitted). We will assume, for

purposes of Molathwa’s appeal, homosexuals are a particular social group eligible for

relief. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1094 (9th Cir. 2000). 

We agree with the IJ and the BIA that Molathwa did not prove it was more

likely than not he would be subject to persecution in Botswana. Molathwa asserts he

was “harassed personally by the police.” However, the officers’ warrantless entry

into Molathwa’s and Berger’s apartment in Botswana was an isolated event and did

not involve violence, threats, intimidation, detention, or even a search. Homosexual

conduct is criminal in Botswana, as it was until recently in some jurisdictions within

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272 
-6-

the United States, but Molathwa was never charged with a crime in Botswana.

Molathwa also testified about two incidents involving mistreatment of homosexuals

in Botswana: (1) the incident in which Molathwa’s friend was beaten by relatives

because of his sexual orientation; and (2) the man who was incarcerated for two days

after being caught engaging in homosexual activity. However, these incidents do not

show any pattern of harassing homosexuals in Botswana. We conclude substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s determination Molathwa presented insufficient evidence

to show he was subjected to harassment or mistreatment by the Botswana government

or the general public, and nothing in the record suggests Molathwa now would be the

target of persecution if he is removed to Botswana.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we deny Molathwa’s petition for judicial review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-4124 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/02/2004 Entry ID: 1840272