NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0125n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 29, 2008 No. 06-4436 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT P ET A R M ATI C AND J AGOD S P O LJ A R IC , Pe tit ion e rs On Petition for Review of a Dec ision of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls v. M I CH A EL M UKAS EY , A TTORN EY G ENERAL OF THE U NI TED S TA TES , Respondent ______________________________/

BEF OR E: KEN NE DY , M AR TIN , a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. KE NNE DY, Circ uit Jud ge. Pe ti ti o n e r s Pe ta r M a ti c a n d Ja g o d a Sp o lj a r ic , h u s band and wife, se ek re view of a

final orde r of removal issued by the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , adopting and af

firming the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) denial of t heir claims for asy lum, withholdi ng of re mov a l, a nd wi thh old ing of re mov a l un de r the Con ve nti on Ag a ins t T or

tur e (“ CA T” ). B e c a

us e we f ind that we do not have jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s a sy lum or CAT clai m s and the finding that Petitioners f

ailed to e stablish their elig ibilit y for withholding of remova l is supported by substantial evidence in the rec ord, we AF F IRM the B I A’s dec ision and DENY the petition for revie w. BACK GR OUND Petitioners Matic and Spoljaric, natives and citizens of Croatia, enter ed the United States as nonimmigra

nt visit ors for ple asure on Dec ember 24, 2001 with authorization to remain in the United2

States until S eptember

23, 2002. On Fe bruar

y 28, 2003, eac h filed an A pplication for Asy lum and Wit hholding of

Removal. On

A p r il 11, 2003, the Depar

tment of Homeland Sec urity (“D HS”) ser

ved

eac h petitioner with a Notice to Appear (“N TA”) , char g ing the m with being subject to r emoval for “re main[ i n g] i n the United States for a time long er tha

n permitted.” 8 U .S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (B ). Pe tit ion e rs e a c h a dmi tte d the a lle g a tio ns in the ir re sp e c tiv e NT As a nd c on c e de d r e mov a bil ity a t a hear ing be fore an I J on Aug ust 13, 2003. On J anuar

y 27, 2005, the I J conducte d a m er i t s hear ing on Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of r emoval applications. At the hearing , Petitioner Sp o ljaric e x plained that she ha d filed he r a sylum

a pp lic a tio n in

F e br ua ry 20 03 , mo re tha

n a y e a r a ft e r h e r a

rr iva l in th e Uni ted Sta te s, beca use she ha d hoped that she w ould be able to stay in the United States by being g rante d a wor k vis a ; he r v isa

a pp lic a tio n w as den ied i n D e c e mbe r 2 00 2. She te sti fi e d th a t sh e fe a rs re tur nin g to C r o a t i a b e c a u s e s h e b e l i e v e s t h a ts h e w i l l b e p e r s e c u t e d o n a c c o u n t o f h e r S e r b o - C r o a t i a n e t h n i c i t y. Petitioner Spolj aric testified about sever al i ncidents of employ ment discrimination beca use of he r Serbian h e r it a g e : ( 1 ) s h e w a s s c h e d u le d to s ta

rt w o r k a t a p u b li s h in g h o u s e a s a n il lu s tr a to r of children’ s books on J anuar y 1, 1998, but afte r t he personnel depa rtment rec eived he r “a

utobiogr aphy wi th [h e r] s c ho oli nga nd [he r] h e ritag e ,” sh e wa s “ tol d .

. . a s an e xcu se tha t Ru ssi a n s tyle in ill us tr a tin g the sc ho ol b oo ks

. . . [is ] not se e n as pr op e r” a nd sh e wa s not as sig ne d a ny oth e r p ro je c ts; (2) she was forc ed to r esig n a month after be g inning wor k at the firm De koteks afte r an a dminist rator told her, “a s a prof

essional y ou are on a hi gh l ev el , . . . but due to unclea n or not clea

n Croatian blood the clients o f Dekoteks c annot tolerate . . . the re putation of the firm De koteks would be de str oy e d;” (3 ) s he ob ta ine d a job a s a de sig ne r at F a c e Cos me tic s o n O c tob e r 1 6, 19 98 , a nd a mon th later he r co- worke rs “star ted talking ag ainst [her] S erbia n heritag e” a

nd she re ceived threatening3

notes; (4) she r esig ned fr om Fa ce Cosmetics on J anuar y 30, 1999 afte r the a dminist rator’ s assistant tol d h e r t hat “ Se rb s are no t to wor k in Face and that it wo uld be be tte r f

or e ve ry bo dy if [she le ft ] Fa ce a nd espec ially

it would be a lot better for [ her];” (5) she was approa ched by an indi vidual in the hallway of her employ er, Mag ma, and threatened, “don’t be in Croatia and in Mag ma[;] we do [sic] h e r e w i t h d e s i g n e r s , t h e y a r e C r o a t i a n s b u t n o t S e r b s [; ] b e w a r e t h a t t h e r e i s a s u rp ri se c omi ng to y o u ; ” a n d (6 ) h er co n t ra ct wi t h M agm a “w as ca n ce l l edd u e t o t h e f ac tt h at t h ey

d i d n o th av e e n o u gh jobs or a nee d to do th e work, . . . which wa s actua lly the big lie” – the dire ctor of Ma g ma was politically

active a nd was the “minister of economy of the Republic of Croatia” a

nd it “was known throug h the newspa

pers a nd the media that [Mag ma] was letting g o ever y body that was Serb.” Petitioner Spolj aric also testified that she ha d been p h y s i ca l ly attacke d and thre atene d by others bec ause of

her Ser bian her itag e. Petitioner Spoljaric alleg ed that an a cquaintanc e with whom sh e ha d w o r

k e d w a i t e d f o r h e r a th e r a p a rt m e n t , e n t e r e d , a n d

t h e n t o l d h e r t h a ts h e w a s a g a ins t Croatia bec ause she is a “dirty Serbian,” while phy sically attackingher by

“slapping [her] over [her] head a nd over [ her] neck. He then informed her t hat t he “police i s with us” and he would kill her if she re ported the inc ident to the police. Petitioner Spoljaric te s t i fi ed t h at she did not repor t the incident to the police be cause she fe are d for her life and she be lieved that the police wer e wor king with the “extreme g roup.” Petitioner Spoljaric also alleg ed that three y oung people jumped in front of he r a nd a fr ie nd wh ile the y

we re wa lki ngdo wn

the str e e t and

sa id, “ Yo u Se rb ian g a rb a g e , it wo uld be a lot better if y ou disappea r from the firm, Fa ce, beca use we will fix y ou in such a manne r that nobody will recog nize y ou.” The three then pulled knives and star ted to advanc e towar d them, but Petitioner Spolj aric and her friend ma

nag ed to run a

way .4

Finally , Petitioner Spolj aric testified that af ter she a nd her now husband, Petitioner Matic, be g a n datin g , the y we re ve rb a lly a tta c ke d b y

un kn own p e op le on

the str e e ts o n a

da ily ba sis fo r t

he ir mix ed her itag e. She indicated that she dec ided to leave Croatia af ter Apr il 2001, when she re ceive d an anony mous phone ca ll during w hich the ca ller stated: “I n Croatia we do not need pe ople from sects and w e do not nee d Serbs. And if y ou marry Petar we will kill y ou both and watc h what y ou’re doing be cause y ou’re being followed.” At the merits hea

ring , P et i tioner Matic state d that he fe ars r eturning to Croatia, a predominate ly

Catholic nation, bec au s e h e believes that he will be per secute d beca use he is an Evang elical Christian. Petitioner Matic testified a bout severa l incidents he al l ege s he suff ere d b e c a u s e o f h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f

s : ( 1 ) h e t r a v e l e d f

r o m t o w n t o t o w n i n 1 9 9 0 , p r o v i d i n g f o o d , m o n e y, and re ligious re lief, as a

m em b er o f a Christian humanitarian g roup and “ all kinds of people” verba lly attacke d him a

nd tried to phy sically

stop him and others in his humanitarian g roup; (2) a fter he wa s arr ested a

nd taken to the pol i ce station in August 1992 for failure to show police the documents he w as re quired to ca rry under Croatian law, he was int err og ated and instructed to knee l at g unpoint a fter telling the inspector that he was not on the front lines of wa r bec ause of

his “heavy C h r i s t i a n b e l i e [ f

s ] ; ” ( 3 ) a l t h o u g h h e r e p o rt e d t h i s i n c i d e n tt o t h e M i n i s t r y o f In t e r i o r t h e n e x td a y, he neve r re ceive d an apolog y or an explanation f or what happene d at the police station; (4) in 1994, a Catholic priest, a long w i t h “a b u n ch of body g uards,” pushed him and other Prote stants out of a restaur ant from which they wer e donating food, while scr eaming , “[Protestants] should be taken out of Croatian soc iety

rig ht f rom the roots,” and threatening to r eport them to the Croatian g overnme nt

an d t h e C at h o l i c c hu rc h ; (5 ) t h e c h u rc h h e a t t en d edo ft en h ad t o ch an ge th e p l ac es o f i t s m ee t i n gs and pray er beca

use of this kind of host ility ; and (6) he was called to attend an informational session5

at the police station in Decembe r 1999, whe re he was a sked his place of birth and relig ion and they confi s c a te d h is p a s s p o rt. Pe ti ti o n e r M a ti c a ll e g e d th a t h e s u f f e r e d a me n ta l b r e a k d o w n o n Marc h 31, 2001 “bec ause of

all these thing s [t hat] were ha ppening to [ him] and all of the [ ] pressure s.” He stated that the doc tors g ave him medic ine, but he was not a dmitted to the hospital be cause he did not have me dical insuranc e. Petitioner Matic state d that afte r he a nd Petitioner

Spoljar ic beg an re ceiving thr e a te nin g ph on e c a lls , h e re so lve d to leave Cr oatia “ a t th e fi rs t mo me nt .

. . fe a sib le ” fo r t he m to “saf ely leave .” The I J issued an oral decision at the conclusion of the mer its hearing on J anuar y 27, 2005, denying Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the CAT, and g ranting Petitioners voluntary depar ture. With respec t to their applications for a sy lum, the I J found that Petitioners had fa i l ed t o t i mely file their a

pplications within one y ear of their a

rrival in the United States as re quired by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (B ). Additionally , the I J found that Petitioners fa ile d to de mon str a te e ith e r c ha ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s or e xtra or din a ry c ir c ums tanc e s to e xcu se the ir untimely filing. Wit h respe ct to their withholding of remova l claims, the I J stated that Pet i t i o n er s had

e mbe lli sh e d th e ir

c la ims , th e ir

te sti mony

wa s not co mpl e te ly c on sis te nt wit h the state me nts in t

he ir

a sylum a pp lic a tio ns , an d th e y

ha d f a ile d to of fe r s uf fi c ie nt c or ro bo rativ e e vid e nc e in s up po rt of the ir claims. Additi o n al l y , the I J found, “e ven assuming either [Petitioner’s] testi mony was c redible,” they had not e stablished a clea r probability that they would be perse cuted if returne d to Croatia. The I J found that Petitioner Spoljaric’s e mploy ment problems amounted to private discrimination, not pe rs e c uti on . T he I J als o f

ound that w hil e the re c or d e vid e nc e ind ic a te s th e re a re so me pr ob le ms w ith

re lig iou s g ro up s in

Cr oatia , Pe tit ion e r M a tic ha d fa ile d to sh ow that th e g ov e rn me nt i s sy ste ma tic a lly6

perse cuting Protestant g roups or that the gover nment had interf

ere d with the prac tice of his re ligion. F ur the rm or e , the I J de te rm ine d tha t Peti tio ne r Ma tic ’s a rr e st in 199 2 w a s b e c a us e of his fa ilure to have ide ntification, not beca use of his Protestant faith, and his subsequent brief detention in 1999

was a result of this police re cord. The I J noted that he wa s relea sed and a ble to rec over his passpor t thr ou g h le g a l me a ns . Withre sp e c t to Pe tit ion e rs ’ C AT c la ims , th e I J hel d th a t Pe tit ion e rs ha d f a ile d to e sta

bli sh that it is more li kely than not that they would be tortured by , or with the conse nt or ac quiesce nce of , the g overnme nt of Croatia if they return to Croatia. Petitioners timely

appea led the I J ’s decision on Dec ember 10, 2004. On Aug ust 31, 2006, the B I A dismissed Petitioners’ appea l a nd aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision. The BIA re issued its decision on October

5, 2006 due to a defe ct in se rvice

. Petitioners f iled a petition for r eview w ith this Court on November

1, 2006. AN AL YSI S Whe re the B I A i nd ic a te s it s a g re e me nt w iththe I J ’s deci sio n a nd a lso pr ov ide s so me comments of its own, as it did here , we r ev i ew b o t h the B I A’s dec ision and the I J ’s dec ision. Mapouya v . Gonzales , 4 87 F .3 d 3 96 , 4 05 (6 th Cir

. 20 07 ). Un de r o ur sta nd a rd of re vie w, we mus t uphold the decision if it i s “s u p p o rt ed by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the

r e c o r d c o n s id e r e d

a s a w h o le.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). To ove rturn an administrative deter

mination under this highly defe rential standa

rd, “w e must find that the evidenc e

n o to n l y su

pp or ts [a c on tr a ry ] co nc lus ion , b ut c om pe ls it.” Id. at 481 n. 1. I . Re q u es t f

o r A s y l u m7

An alien is pre cluded f

rom applying f

or asy lum unless she “demonstrates by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the a pplication has be en filed within 1 y ear afte r the date of the a lien’s

arr ival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( B)

. The ex ceptions t o the one y ear require ment permit an application to be considere d if the alien demonstrates the exis tence of ei t h er ch anged circ umstances whic h materia lly aff ect he r elig ibilit y fo r asylum or ext raor dinary circ umstances relating to her

del ay i n fi ling the a

pplication. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (D). “ Ex traordina ry circ umstances” m ay ex cuse the failure to file within one y ear “as longas the a lien filed the application within a re asonable period g iven those circ umstances.” 8 C

. F. R. § 208.4(a)( 5). The burden of

proof is on the a lien to establish to t h e s at i s fa cti on of the I J or the B I A that “the

c ir c ums tanc e s w e re no t in te nti on a lly c re a te d th ro ug h h is o r h e r o wn a c tio n o r i na c tio n, that th os e circ umstances we re dire ctly related to the alien’ s failu re to file the application within the 1-y ear period, a nd that the delay

was re asonable under the circ umstances.” Id

. We lack jurisdiction to review the I J and B I A’s dec ision that an alien is not eli g ible for asylum on the basis of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) (2)( B) & (D), unless the a lien has ra ised a c onstitut ional

c la im o r a qu e sti on of statut or y c on str uc tio n. 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (a )( 3) ; Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 746- 48 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding , afte r enac tment of the REAL I D Act, that while the Court lacks jurisdiction to revie w discretionar y and fac tual questions r elating to the untimely filing of an asylum application, the Court has jurisdiction, under 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1252(a) (2)( D), to re view constitutional claims and matters of statutory construction related to the unt imely filing if an alien raises suc h issues). Petitioners arg ue that we have jur isdiction to revie w t he I J and B I A’s dete rmination that they

a re no t e lig ibl e fo r a sylum be c a us e of the ir fa ilure to fi le a n a pp lic a tio n wi thi n on e y e a r o f t he date8

of the ir a rr iva l in the Un ite d St a te s b e c a

us e the y ra ise a c on sti tut ion a l cla im re la tin g to t he un tim e ly filing. Petitioners attempt to raise a constitutional c laim by arguing that the I J and B I A violated due proce ss by failing to eng ag e in a case-by -ca se reasonable ness analy sis for a delay period shorte r than

s i x m o n t hs, as re quired by ag ency regulations. See 65 Fe d. Reg . 76123-76124 (De c. 6, 2000) (“ [W]ait ing[to a

pp ly fo r a sylum ] six mon ths or lon g e r a ft e r e xpir a tio n o r t e rm inatio n o f s ta tus w o uld

no t be c on sid e re d r e a so na ble . Sh or te r p e ri od s o f t ime wo uld be c on sid e re d o n a c a se -b y -c a se ba sis , with the decision-make r taking into account the totality of the circ umstances.” ). We find, howeve r, that the I J and B I A did eng ag e in a c ase- by -ca se ana ly sis and conclu d ed that waiting five months

a ft e r t he ir lawf ul n on imm ig ra

nt s ta tus e xpir e d to fi le the ir a sylum a pp lic a tio ns wa s a

n unr e a so na

ble period, de spite Petit io n e r s ’ c o ntention that they waited be cause they

hoped that Petitioner Spoljaric’s vis a pe tit ion wo uld be a pp ro ve d. Pe tit ion e rs ’ p ur po rt e d d ue pr oc e ss c la im is sim

ply a n a tte mpt

to challeng e the I J and BIA’s discretionar y deter mination that filing a visa petition is not a valid rea son fo r d e lay ingthe fi lin g of

a n a sylum

a pp lic a tio n a ft e r l a wf

ul s ta tus ha s e xpir e d a

nd do e s n ot c on sti tut e excusable extraordinar

y circ umstances. The ref ore, b ecause Petitioners have not raised a constitutional question or matter of statutory construction, we must dismiss the petition for re view on their asylum claims for lac k of appe llate jurisdiction.

II. Request for Relief Under the Convention Against Torture Petitioners also argue that the I J err ed in re ly ing on In Re S- V- , 22 I . & N . Dec . 1306 (2000), for the sta ndard of g overnme nt “ acquie scenc e” require d to qua lify for withholding of remova l under the CAT when the alien alleg es a likelihood of torture from non-g overnme ntal source s beca use of

our re cent de cision in Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006). Petitioners, however , failed to exhaust t heir a dminist rative r emedies by raising such cla ims before the B I A in the first instance

.9

There fore , we lack j urisdiction to revie w t he denia l of Petitioners’ claims for withholding of r emoval under the CAT. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). III. Request for Withh oldin g of Rem oval Finally , Petitioners seek re view of the denial of their reque st for withholding of remova l. To qualify for withholding of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a n applicant must establish a c lear probability

that he will b e p er s ec u t ed on account of a protec ted g round if for ced to r eturn to the country of re m o v al

. Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 88 F .3 d 9 41 , 9 51 (6 th C ir .2 00 4) . A n a pp lic a nt m

us t demonstrate that “it is more likely t h an n o t ” t h at h e will be per secute d upon return. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.16(b)( 2). An applicant’s testimony may be suff icient to establish elig ibilit y for withholding of re moval if it is “bel i ev ab l e, co nsistent, and sufficie ntly detailed to provide a plausible a nd coher ent ac count of the ba sis for his fea r.” Pilica , 388 F.3d at 954. I n the prese nt c ase, the I J and BIA held that even if Petitioners w ere cre dible, they had not established that they

had bee n perse cuted in the pa st or that there is a clea r proba bility that they would be subjec t to persec ution if returne d to Croatia. The I J and BIA found that the e mploy ment dis c ri min a tio n, be a tin g s b y a n a c qu a int a nc e a nd

un kn ow n a ssailants , a

nd a no ny mou s th re a ts Petitioner Spolj aric alleg edly su ff er ed o n account of her

ethnicity did not amount to persecution. F ur the rm or e , be c a

us e Pe tit ion e r Spo lja

ri c did no t fi le fo rm a l c omp la int s o r e ve n r e po rt the inc ide nts to the police, the I J and BI A fo u n d t h at s he could not demonstrate a c lear probability

of future perse cution as she ha d failed to de monstrate that Croatia is unwilling or unable to protect he r fr om the a lle g e d n on -g ov e rn me nta l pe rs e c uto rs . The I J a lso fo un d tha t Peti tio ne r M a tic ’s c la im that hi s relig ious gr oup was de nied ac cess to public squar es did not constitute persec ution and his detention10

by the pol ice resulted from his failure to have proper I D documents in his possession at t he time, not beca use of his re ligion or e thnicity

. Be cause the re cord e vidence does not compel a finding that it is m ore likely than not that Petitioners’ lives or fr eedom would be threatened on acc ount of their ethnicity or re ligion if re turned to C ro a tia , w e up ho ld t

he I J and B I A’ s d e nia l of

wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the decision of the BIA and DENY the petition for revie w.