F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 24 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

The Honor able Adalberto Jordan, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

_________________________ N o. 04- 1146 3

_________________________ BI A N o. A 75- 430- 804 SA MIR M. AL IM, Petitioner, ve rs us AL BE RT O G ON ZA LE S, A tto rn eyG en er al of

the U nit edS ta te s, Re spon de nt.

_____________________________ Petition for Review of a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I mmigr at ion A ppe al s

____________________________ (A pr il 24, 200 6) Before TJO FL ATand KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and JORD AN , District Judge. * JORD AN , D istrict Judg e:2

Sa mir M. A lim pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie w of

af ina l or de r of

the Bo ar d of Immigration Appeals, w hich affirmed, w ithou t opin ion, a decision of an immigration judge (“ IJ”) deny ing claim s for w ithho lding of removal und er 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ), a nd w ith hol din g of r emova l un de r the U nit edN at ion s Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Crue l, I nhum an , or D eg ra din g T re at m en t or P uni shmen t ( “ CA T ”) , P ub. L . 105 -2 77, § 22 42, 112 S ta t. 268 1- 761, 268 1- 822 (1 99 8) . See 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .16 (b )-( c) . For t he reas on s d is cu ss ed be lo w, we dis miss the pe tit ion in part , a nd d en y the pe tit ion in part .

I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUN D Mr . A lim , ana tiv e an d c iti ze n of S y ri a, w as a dmitt edto the U nit edS ta te s in Se pte m be r of 199 0 a s anon -i mmigr an t vi sit or f or ple as ur e, w ith auth or iz at ion to re m ai n f or six m onths. U pon ad miss ion , he pr es en te d aBo liv ia n pa ssp ort a nd a U . S. non immigr an t vi saiss ue d in the na m e of Carl os C ab re ra . H e re m ai ne d in the country longer than the six m onth s authorized, and had two children in the U. S. w ith aBo liv ia n w om an na m edG ina I ba ne z. Ms . I ba ne z re turne d to Bo liv iaw ith the c hil dr en in 1997 . In 199 7, Mr . A lim

m ar ri edaU . S. c iti ze n na m edL or a, w ho f ile d avis a pe ti ti on forth e b en efi t o f Mr. Al im . Lora g av e b irt h t o ach il d i n t he U.S. in 19 97 . In 199 8, Mr . A lim

w as arr es te d f

or a ssault ing L or a, a nd p le d no lo c ont en de re ( or3

no co nt es t) i n F lo rid a ci rcu itco ur t fo r do m es ti c b at te ry in vi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 784. 03( 1) (A ). A dj udi catio n w as w ith he ld, a nd M r. A lim w as se nte nc edto nin e m onth s’ probation, fined $100 , a nd ordered to stay aw ayfrom Lor a. L ora pr oc ee de d w ith the vis a pe tit ion , a nd s he a nd M r. A lim w er e int er vie w edbythe Immigration and Naturalization Service in January of 1999. At that interview , Mr . A lim state d th at

he ha d ne ve r be en arr es te d or c onvi ct edof

ac ri me. I n Ju lyof 19 99 , Mr. Ali m

tra ve le d t o S y riaforon e m on th , and th en to Bo li vi a. In O ct obe r of

199 9, Mr . A lim

w as ind ic te d in f

ed er al c ourt f

or m aking f al se statem ents at his INS interview, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. § 1001 . Lora withdrew the vis a pe tit ion , a nd d ivo rc edMr . A lim in N ove m

be r of 199 9. A. T HE I MM IGR ATIO N P ROCEEDI NGS O n J a n u ar y 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , th e I N S s e r v e d an o t i c e t o ap p e ar o n M r . A l i m, co mm en ci ng r emova l pr oc ee din gs. T he not ic e ch ar ge d M r. A lim w ith rem ovabili ty on various g rounds : (1) under 8 U .S .C. § 1227 (a)( 1)(A ), as an alien ina dmiss ibl e at

the ti m e of

e ntry , f or se eking to pr oc ur e a vis a or a dmiss ion int o th e U.S. by fraud , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) ; (2 ) un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1227 (a )( 1) (A ), a s a n a lie n in ad miss ibl e at the ti m e of

e ntry , f or not be ing in po ss es si on of v al id en try do cu m en ta ti on , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1182 (a )( 7) (A )( i) (I ); ( 3) und er 8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (1 )( B) , a s a n a lie n pr es en t i n th e4

U.S. fora pe rio d o f ti m e lo ng er t ha n o rig in al ly permit te d; an d (4 ) un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1227 (a )( 2) (E )( i) , f

or c ommitt ing ac ri m e of

domes tic vio le nc e af

te r ad miss ion to th e U.S. On A pril 5, 2000, Mr. Alim m arrie d another U. S. citizen, Elizabeth. A s had Lora , Eliz ab et h a ls o fi le d avi sape ti ti on forMr. Ali m ’s ben efi t. Mr . A lim w as c onvi ct edon the f

ed er al f al se state m en ts c harg e on A pr il 12, 2000 . T he I N S subs eq ue ntl y a m en de d it s c harg es a ga ins t M r. A lim on M ay9, 20 00 , all eg in g t ha t h e was als o s ub ject t o re m ov al un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1227 (a)( 2)(A )(ii) a s an alien convicted after a dmissio n to the U. S. of two or m ore crimes inv olv ing m or al tur pitude ( i. e. , the 199 8 do m es tic ba tte ryple a an d th e 2000 false statements convictio n). A n I J he ld a

he aring on S ep te m

be r 28, 200 0. W ith one e xc ep tio n, Mr . A lim ad mitt eda ll of

the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns s uppo rt ing the I N S’ c harg es . I n or de r to pr es er ve his c la im

f or c an ce llatio n of

r emova l, Mr . A lim

de nie d th at

he sou ght

to enter the U .S . byfraud. A t som e tim e before the hearing, Mr . A lim submitted an application for cancellation of rem oval, presum ably under 8 U. S. C. § 122 9b. Mr. A lim a lso e xpl ai ne d th at

he w as pla nni ng o n f

ili ng a n appl ic at ion f

or a dj ust m en t of status to that of

ape rm an en t r es ide nt u nde r 8 U . S. C. § 12 55, but ha d y et to do so b ec au se E liz ab eth’ s vi sape tit ion w as pe ndi ng. T he I J e xpl ai ne d th at Mr . A limA “ no llepr os e qu i,” un de r F lorida la w, is a “ no n- fi nal, n on -b ind ing ind ic atio n that th e state 1 is not proce eding with its case at the time[.]” Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Florida , 408 So.2d 756, 757 (F la. 3d DCA 1982). See also B LACK ’ S LAW D I C TI ONAR Y 1074 (8th ed. 2004) ( “A doc ket entry showing that the...prosec ution has abandone d the ac tion.”). 5 didnot m ee t the 10- y ear co nti nuou s r es ide nc e re qui re m en t t o be e lig ibl e fo r ca nc el la tio n of

r emova l. H e the n r etur ne d th e ca nc el la tio n of r emova l appl ic at ion to M r. A lim ’ s c ouns el , w ith out obj ec tio n. In Novem

ber of 2000, Mr. Alim

filed a petition for a w rit of er ror cora m nobi s in the F lorida

c ir cu it co urt w he re he ple d no c ont es t t o do m es tic ba tte ryin 1998 . H e soug ht t o va cate his ple a unde r Ru le 3. 172 of the F lorida

Ru le s of Criminal Procedure bec ause the court had not advi sed him of the potential immig rat io n c on se qu en ces . The s ta te res po nd ed by fili ng a sh or t m em or an du m . The state did no t challenge the factual a llegations m ade by Mr. Alim , but asked the c ourt t o c onve rt

the dis posi tio n of

the c as e to a

“ nol le pr ose qui , ” w hic h th e 1 st at e co ur t cl erkdi d o n M arch 2, 2 00 1. In earl y 20 02 , Eliz ab et h’s v is a p et it io n o n b eh al f of Mr. Ali m

was a pp ro ve d. In Marc h of 2002 , Mr . A lim filed an application to adjust his statu s to that of a pe rm an en t r es ide nt u nde r 8 U . S. C. § 12 55. E liz ab eth, how ev er , w ith dr ew he r vis a pe ti ti on so m e ti m e la te r in 20 02 . T he I J he ld a nothe r he aring on J an uary17, 200 3. Mr . A lim a dmitt edto6

be ing r emovable und er

thr ee of the f ive gr ound s a lle ge d bythe I N S. H e de nie d re m ovabil ityund er

8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (2 )( E )( i) , f or be ing c onvi ct edof

ac ri m e of domes tic vio le nc e, a nd d en ie d r emovabil ityund er 8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (2 )( A )( ii) , f or being conv icted of two c rimes involv ing m oral turpitude after a dmissio n. T he IJ fo und that a ll of

the c harg es sup portin g r emovabil ityw er e sus ta ine d byc le ar a nd co nvi nc ing e vid en ce . A t the c onc lus ion of the he aring , Mr . A lim

sa id tha t he would be filing an appli cation for w ithho lding of removal and relief under the U .S . im pl em en ta ti on of t he CAT. On Fe bruary13, 2003, Mr. Alim filed an application for asy lum under 8 U . S. C. § 11 58, w ith hol din g of r emova l un de r 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ), a nd w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r the CA T . A t a n e vid en tiaryhe aring on M ay20, 2003 , Mr . A lim

of fe re d c opi es of

the U . S. D ep artmen t of

S ta te r ep orts o n S y ri a and his own testim ony . Ther e w as no other evidence presented. A fter the I J noted that the application wa s untim ely insofar as it re quested asy lum , Mr . A lim testified in s uppo rt

of his c la im s f

or w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e CAT. B. M R . A LIM ’ S T ES TIMONY AND THE I MM IGR ATIO N J UDGE ’ S R ULING Mr. Alim , 39 y ears old at the time of the May30, 2003 hearing, testified that he ha s be en aCh ri sti an sin ce he w as bapti ze d a t the a ge of one , a nd tha t hi s7

fa milyis Ch ri sti an . H e ha s no f am ilyin Sy ri a to s uppo rt

him f ina nc ia llybe cause Ch ri sti an s su ff

er e xtr eme dis criminatio n a nd h av e tr oubl e fi ndi ng w ork on a cc ount of th ei r rel ig io n. W he n he w as in his e ar lytw en tie s, his c ousi n, a lso aCh ri sti an , le ft S y ri a to fight in a Lebanese civil war on behalf of Christians. Afam ily m em ber told Mr. Alim that his cous in was shot and kill ed in Lebanon by Muslim s because he w as s u s p e c t e d o f

b e i n g as p y f

o r I s r a e l . T h e f

a mi l y me mb e r

a l s o s h o w e d M r . A l i m a pic tur e of the c ousi n si tti ng o n to p of a n I sr ae li ta nk. Mr . A lim doe s no t kn ow how the f am ilym em be r kne w how or

w hythe c ousi n w as kil le d. Mr . A lim c oul d n o tp ro d u ce a d ea t h ce rt i fi ca t e o r o t h erp h ysi ca l ev i d en ce re l at i n g t o h i s co u s i n ’s de ath. W hen he was a

teenager, Mr. Alim

j oined a group called the “ Christian U nit y Br oth er s. ” A s am em be r of thi s gr oup, Mr . A lim

w orke d a t c onve rt ing Mus lim s to Ch ri sti an ity . T he re w as a“ ba d po int ”o r “ bla ck poi nt” in his sc hool re co rd s, a nd “ ne ga tiv e re ports” a ga ins t hi m be cause he w as am em

be r of thi s group. Certain unid entified Muslim s also went “ after him ” for being an outspo ken Ch ri sti an . Whil e in c ivi lia n li fe , how ev er , Mr . A lim w as ne ve r ar

re ste d, de ta ine d, or im pr iso ne d f

or a nyr ea son. Mr . A lim j oin edthe S y ri an a ir

f or ce in 1981 . N ei the r his Ch ri sti an f ai th,8

nor his m em be rs hip in the Ch ri sti an U nit y Br oth er s, pr ec lud edhim f ro m se rv ing in the military . Although his sup eriors did not kn ow he w as in a specific group, they didkno w Mr . A lim

w as a n ou tsp oke n C hr ist ia n. S omet ime in 1 987 or 198 8, w hil e he w as sti ll in the a ir

f or ce , one of

his f ri en ds, a lso aCh ri sti an , w as c ha se d a nd sh otby a gro up of M us li m s. Mr . A lim w as ne ve r de ta ine d, arr es te d, or im pr iso ne d w hil e se rv ing in the mili tary . H e w as auto m at ic al lypr om ote d a t l ea st o nc e during his e igh t y ears of se rv ic e. H e te sti fi ed , how ev er , that the S y ri an mili tarydis criminate s a ga ins t i ts Ch ri sti an se rv ic emen in j ob p la ce m en ts. H e w as the re fo re de nie d c erta in righ ts an d t reat ed ba dl y whi le ser vi ng in th e mil it ary. In mid- 1989 , Mr . A lim

de se rt edthe S y ri an mili tary , a nd s pe nt ap pr oxi m at el y six m onths tra ve lin g th ro ugho ut the c ountryin an e ff ort t o e va de cap tu re. In 19 90 , he was ab le to lea ve Sy riail le ga ll y wit h t he he lp of afri en d. He board edaf

lig ht t o B oli via , w he re he spe nt f ive or six m onths, be fo re usi ng a f al se Bo liv ia n pa ssp ort t o e nte r the U nit edS tate s. In 199 9, Mr . A lim

r etur ne d to S y ri a to v isi t hi s il l, 74- y ear- oldm oth er , a nd spe nt 3 0 da y s th er e. H e fr au dul en tlye nte re d a nd e xit edthr oughJor da n w ith the help of an old friend, successfully evading Sy rian immigration and law en fo rc emen t auth or iti es . H e fi rs t t es tif ie d th at he e nte re d S y ri a w ith af al seAt various times throug hout his removal proc eeding s, Mr. Ali m prese nted five claims for 2 re lie f: (1 ) c a nc e llatio n o f re mov a l un de r 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 b; ( 2) a dju stm e nt o f s tatus un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1255; (3) asylum unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1158; ( 4) withholding of removal unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) ; and (5) withholding of r emoval under the CAT. 9 pa ssp ort, but

the n sa id tha t the pa ssp ort w as not f al se , but mer el y miss pe lle d hi s na m e. The IJ th en in di cat ed th atth is st il l co ns ti tu te d fr au d. Mr . A lim be lie ve d th at

if r emove d to S y ri a, he w oul d be tortur ed , persecuted, or killed for being a Christian or for deserting the military . He further be lie ve d he w oul d be im

pr iso ne d in amili tarypr iso n na m edP al m er a fo r de se rt ing the mili tary . H e te sti fi edthat priso ne rs a t P al m er a do n ot h av e vis itatio n r igh ts, cannot comm

unicate with their fa milies, and spend the rest of their lives inc ar ce rate d. The I J issued an oral decision adverse to Mr. Alim . The I J found th at Mr. A lim a dm itt eda ll of

the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns s uppo rt ing the I N S’ c harg es of rem ovabili ty at the January17, 2003, hearing, a nd found that Mr. Alim wa s rem ovable on all five groun ds alleged by the IN S. T he IJ then proceeded to Mr. Alim ’ s claim s for re lief. 2 T he I J di d no t men tio n M r. A lim ’ s appl ic at ion f or c an ce llatio n of

r emova l, but foun d that Mr. Alim ’ s application for adjustm ent of status was abandoned be cause E liz ab eth ha d w ith dr aw n he r vis a pe tit ion , a nd M r. A lim ne ve r soug ht a10

waiv er o f in ad mis si bi li ty, whi ch was re qu ire d b ecau se of h is cri min al co nv ic ti on s. A lte rn at ive ly , he rule d th at e ve n if thi s c la im

w as not aba ndon ed , he w oul d de ny Mr. Al im ad jus tm en t o f st at us in th e ex erci se of h is di sc ret io n. The IJ d en ie d M r. Ali m ’s asylum cl ai m un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 15 8 a s u nt im el y . H e not edthat M r. A lim

w as se eking a sy lum

a s aCh ri sti an f

ro m apr ed omina ntl y Muslim country , a nd because he deserted the Sy rian military . But he found th at this di d not reflect anychanged conditi ons in Sy ria, or exceptional circum stances th atwou ld jus ti fy it s l at e co ns id erat io n. T he I J pr oc ee de d to a na ly ze the e vid en ce Mr . A lim of fe re d in sup port of

his cl ai m s f or w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d th e CA T . T he I J m ad e an adverse cr edibilit y determination with re spect to Mr. Alim . He also doub ted Mr . A lim ’ s c re dib ili tybe cause he ha d c ommitt edm ult ipl e ac ts o f fr au d bo th i n the U . S. a nd S y ri a. H e doub te d w he the r Mr . A lim w oul d a ctua llybe pe rs ec ute d or tortur edif

r emove d, giv en that he spe nt s ix months i n S y ri a af te r de se rt ing the mili taryw ith out

be ing c ap tur ed , a nd w ill ing lyr etur ne d to S y ri a in 1 999 fo r 30 d ays t o v i s i th i s m o t h er . F i n al l y, he n o t ed an i n co n s i s t en cy i n Mr . Al i m ’s te sti m ony . Mr . A lim

f ir st t es tif ie d th at , in 1999 , he r e- en te re d S y ri a w ith af al se passpo rt, but th en testified that the passpo rt w as valid, and only incorrectlyspelled hi s n am e.11

The I J rej ected the § 1231(b)(3) and CATclaim s inso far as they we re based on the po ssibi lity of persec ution or torture on account of Mr. Alim ’ s Christian faith. He found that Mr. A lim ’ s case-in-c hief w as based on his cousin bein g killed in L eb an on, but

f oundthi s te sti m onyhig hlyspe cu la tiv e an d c onc lus ory . H e al so re j ec te d th e cl ai m s be cause Mr . A lim w as ne ve r de ta ine d or

arr es te d e ith er

in pr ivate or mili taryli fe f

or be ing aCh ri sti an , de spi te his ope n pr ac tic e of Ch ri sti an ity . H e fu rthe r re j ec te d M r. A lim ’ s C A T c la im ins of ar a s it w as ba se d on the thr eat of

tortur e on a cc ount

of his mili taryde se rt ion a nd i lle ga l e xit f ro m S y ri a in 1 990. H e doub te d w he the r Mr . A lim a ctua llyde se rt edthe mili tary . T o th e ex te nt h e be lie ve d th at

Mr . A lim

de se rt edthe mili tary , he w as not c onvi nc edthat, if r emove d, Mr . A lim

w oul d a ctua llybe c au ght f or de se rt ing a nd l ea vin g S y ri a illegally . In case M r. Alim wa s caught for deserting and leaving il legally , the I J d o u b t e d th a th e wo u l d b e p u n i s h e d u n r e a s o n ab l y. Mr. Alim appealed the IJ’ s decision to the BIA . His brief to the BIAstated that the I J de nie d hi s § 1 231( b) (3 ) an d C A T c la im s f or w ith hol din g r emova l, a nd re pe at ed , pr ac tic al lyve rb at im , the I J’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s. H is b ri ef

didnot m en tio n his appl ic at ion f

or c an ce llatio n of

r emova l. A s f

or his appl ic at ion f

or a dj ust m en t of status , he m en tio ne d th at the I J f oundit to be aba ndon ed , but

didnot dis put e the IJ ’ s ruli ng. H e ar gue d th at the I J e rr edin m aking a n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing ,This provision, repe aled in 1996, is the predece ssor to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). See I lleg al 3 Immigration Ref

orm and Immigrant Responsibil ity Act of 1996, Pub. L . 104-208, §§ 305, 307,110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-597-614 (1996) . 12 and in findin g he did no t m eet the burden of proof for a sy lum - a we ll-founded fe ar of pe rs ec uti on. I n hi s c onc lus ion , he r eq ue ste d th at the BI A gr an t hi m

a sy lum unde r § 11 58, w ith hol din g of r emova l un de r 8 U . S. C. § 12 53( h) , a nd/ or 3 wi t h h o l d i n g o f r emo v al u n d erth e C AT. Th e B IA s u mm ar i l y af fi rmed th e I J ’s order w ithou t an opini on, and Mr. Alim filed a timely petition for r eview her e. II. J URIS DICTI ON W e m ust first consid er w hether w e have subje ct-m atter j urisdictio n to hear Mr. Al im ’s pet it io n. Se e, e . g. , R es en diz -A lc are z v . U . S. A tto rney G en . , 383 F . 3d 1262 , 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). T he governm ent argues that we lack subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n over the petition for tw o reasons. F irst, 8 U .S .C. § 1252 (a)( 2)(C) st rip s u s o f su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on be cau se Mr. Ali m was c on vi ct ed of t wo crimes inv olv ing m or al tur pitude . S ec ond, Mr . A lim f ai le d to e xhaust

his ad mini str at ive r emed ie s a s to his c la im s be fo re the BI A . T he gov ernmen t’ s f ir st ar g u m en tre l at es t o th e p et i t i o n as a w h o l e, wh i l e t h e s ec o n d i s cl ai m -s p ec i fi c. We ad dr es s e ac h arg umen t i n tu rn . A. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a )(2 )(C) Ourjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w fin al ord ers of r em ov al is li mit ed by 8 U.S.C. §13

1252 (a )( 2) (C ), w hic h pr ovi de s:

N otw ith sta ndi ng a nyoth er pr ovi sio n of

la w ( statut ory or nons tatutory ), includin g section 22 41 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provis ion, and sections 13 61 and 16 51 of such tit le , a nd e xc ep t a s pr ovi de d in sub para gr ap h ( D ), no c ourt sh al l ha ve j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie w a nyf ina l or de r of

r emova l a ga ins t an a lie n w ho i s r emovable byr ea son of ha vin g c ommitt eda crimina l of

fe nse c ove re d in se ct ion 118 2( a) (2 ) or 1227 (a )( 2) (A )( iii ), ( B) , ( C) , or ( D ) of thi s ti tle , or

a nyof fe nse co ve re d byse ct ion 122 7( a) (2 )( A )( ii) of thi s ti tle f

or w hic h bo th pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s are , w ith out

r eg ar d to the ir

da te of co mmiss ion , oth er w ise c ove re d byse ct ion 122 7( a) (2 )( A )( i) of this tit le. This provisio n strips us of j urisdictio n to “ review a final order of removal of (1) an al ie n, ( 2) w ho i s r emovable , ( 3) be cause he c ommitt edac ri mina l of fe nse enum erate d in the statut e. ” Re sendiz-Alcarez , 383 F . 3d at 12 66 ( ci tin g F er nandez B er nal v . U . S. A tto rney G en . , 25 7 F .3d 13 04 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 01 )). W e ag re e w ith the part ie s th at the onl y r el ev an t st atuto rypr ovi sio ns refe renced in § 1252(a)(2)(C ) that could strip us of subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n are §§ 1 227( a) (2 )( A )( i) a nd ( ii) , w hic h pr ovi de a s f oll ow s: (i ) Crimes of

m or al tur pitude A nya lie n w ho- (I ) is c onvi ct edof

ac ri m e inv olv ing m or al tur pitude committed within five y ears ( or 10 y ears in the ca se of an alien pr ovi de d la w fu l pe rm an en t r es ide nt s ta tus und er se ct ion 1255 (j ) of thi s ti tle ) af

te r the da te of

a dmiss ion , a nd (I I) is co nvi ct edof

ac ri m e fo r w hic h ase nte nc e of one14 y ear or lon ge r m aybe im

pose d, is deportable. (i i) Mu lti ple c ri mina l c onvi ct ion s Any alie n wh o a t an y ti m e aft er ad mis si on is co nv ic te d o f two or m ore crim es involv ing m oral turpitude, not arising ou t of a singl e scheme of criminal miscondu ct, regardless of w hether co nf ine d th er ef

or a nd r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the c onvi ct ion s we re in a single trial, is deportable. So , w he the r w e ha ve sub

j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n de pe nds on w he the r Mr . A lim is re m ovable f

or the r ea son state d in § 12 27( a) (2 )( A )( ii) , f or w hic h bo th p re dic at e o f f e n s e s ar e , wi t h o u tr e g ar d t o th e i r d a t e o f c o mm i s s i o n , o t h e r w i s e c o v e r e d b y § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ). See 8 U. S. C. § 125 2(a)( 2)(C) . We t u rn t o § § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( A) (i ) a n d (i i ) t o d et er mi n e w h et h erMr . Al i m ’s 2000 c onvi ct ion a nd 1 998 ple a m ee t the statut ory r eq uir emen ts. T he re is no d i s p u t e th a th i s 2 0 0 0 c o n v i c t i o n f o r mak i n g f a l s e s t a t e me n t s t o th e I N S i s ac r i me in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e, an d i s co ve red by § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ). See Itani v. A shc rof t , 298 F . 3d 1 213, 121 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( crimes inv olv ing f al se state m en ts ar e crimes of

m or al tur pitude ). T he re is al so n o di sput e that the f al se state m en ts c o n v i c t i o n a n d th e 1 9 9 8 d o me s t i c b a t t e r y p l e ad o n o tar i s e o u to f as i n g l e s c h e me of cri min al mis co nd uc t. See 8 U. S. C. § 122 7(a)( 2)(A )(ii). T hus, subject- m atter j ur isd ic tio n de pe nds on w he the r Mr . A lim ’ s 19 98 d omes tic ba tte ryple a co unt s a s a se co nd c onvi ct ion f

or pur pose s of § 12 27( a) (2 )( A )( i) & (i i) , a nd, thu s, f or15

purpose s of

§ 12 52( a) (2 )( C) . T he a nsw er to that qu es tio n is no. T he 199 8 do m es tic ba tte ryple a w as va cate d be cause Mr . A lim w as not ad vis ed- a s r eq uir edbyF lorida la w - of the immigr at ion c onse que nc es w he n he pled no con test. T hus, the narrow j urisdictio nal questio n is whether an a lien re m ai ns “ co nvi ct ed ” of

a n of fe nse , a s th at

te rm is de fi ne d in the I mmigr at ion a nd N at ion al ityA ct , a ft er

the c onvi ct ion or

ple a ha s be en va cate d on the m erits to re m ed y avio la tio n of

c onst itu tio na l or

statut ory r igh ts tha t oc cu rr edduring the unde rl y ing c ri mina l pr oc ee din g. The I NAdefines the term “ convictio n” in 8 U. S. C. § 110 1(a)( 48)(A) as fo llo w s: (a) As used in this chapter --

... (4 8) The t erm

"co nv ic ti on " m ean s, wi th res pe ctto an ali en , a fo rm al jud gm en t o f gu il t o f th e al ie n e nt ered by a cou rt o r, if adj udi ca tio n of

gui lt has be en wi thh el d, wh ere -- (i) a j udge or juryhas found th e alien guilty or the ali en has entered a plea of g uilty or no lo contend ere or has admitted suf fi ci en t f ac ts t o w ar

ra nt a f ind ing of gui lt, a nd (ii) the jud

ge has ordered

som e for m of puni shm en t, pe nal ty , or restrain t on the ali en's liberty to be imposed . (em phasis add ed). A s e xpl ai ne d abit

la te r, the BI A ha s c onstru ed§ 11 01( a) (4 8) (A ), a nd thus,16

w e ar e co nf

ro nte d w ith “ an a ge nc y ’ s c onstru ct ionof the statut e w hic h it administers.” Chevron U. S.A ., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, I nc. , 467 U.S . 837, 842 (1984). I n such a case, we are required to conduct a two-step an al y sis : Fi rs t, a lw ay s, is the que sti on w he the r Co ngr es s ha s di re ct ly

spok en to the pr ec ise que sti on at i ssu e. I f the int en t of Co ngr es s is clear, that is the end of the m atter; for the court, a s well a s the agency , m

ust giv e ef

fect to the unam

bigu ously expressed int en t of Co ngr es s. If, how ev er , the c ourt de te rm ine s C ongr es s ha s no t di re ct lya ddr es se d th e pr ec ise que sti on at i ssu e, the co urt do es not

sim plyim pose it s ow n c onstru ct ion on the statute, as w ould be necessaryin the absence of an ad mini str at ive int er

pr et at ion . Rathe r, if

the statut e is s ile nt o r am big uous w ith r es pe ct

to the spe ci fi c iss ue , the que sti on f or the c ourt i s w he the r the a ge nc y ' s a nsw er is ba se d on a permissib le construction o f the statute. Id . a t 84 2- 43. 1. T HE S TATUTE ’ S S ILENCE The word s o f a s ta tu te are n or m al ly ascri be d t he ir p la in m ean in g, se e, e . g. , Co nsol ida te d B ank

, N. A . v . U

. S. D ep ’t of Trea sur

y , 118 F. 3d 14 61, 1463 (11t h Cir. 1997 ), but § 11 01(a)(48)(A ) does not specify how to treat a nolo con tendere plea w hic h ha s su bse que ntl y be en va cate d on the m erits to re m ed y avio la tio n of the al ie n’ s c onst itu tio na l or

statut ory r igh ts. T he statut e de fi ne s ac onvi ct ion up thr ough the ti m e of

se nte nc e, but

sa y s no thi ng about

w ha t e ff ec t, if a ny , the17

co nvi ct ion or

ple a shou ld b e giv en w he n th er e is a sub se que nt v ac atur

be cause the al ie n’ s st atuto ryor

c onst itu tio na l righ ts w er e vio la te d du ri ng the und er ly ing cri min al pro ceed in g. Se e, e . g. , I NS v . A gui rre -A gui rre , 526 U . S. 415 , 424 ( 1999 ) (c ourt sh oul d a sk “ w he the r the statut e is s ile nt o r am big uous w ith r es pe ct

to the sp eci fic is su e b efo re i t...”) (q uo ta ti on s o mit te d) . W e re co gni ze our

pr ior de ci sio n in R es en diz -A lc araz , 383 F . 3d at 12 65- 1269 , but do n ot f indit c ontro lli ng o n th is p re ci se iss ue . I n R es en diz -A lc araz , we he ld tha t a

c onvi ct ion va cate d pu rs ua nt t o astate r eh ab ili ta tiv e m ea sur e sti ll co unt s as a “ co nv ic ti on ” u nd er § 11 01 (a)( 48 )(A). Se e id . A c onvi ct ion va cate d pu rs ua nt to a state r eh ab ili ta tiv e m ea sur e sti ll m ee ts the li te ra l de fi nit ion of a“ co nvi ct ion ” under § 110 1(a)( 48)(A) , a nd it m akes no difference that the convictio n is later ex pu ng ed . Se e id . a t 12 68 ( “ [T ] he statut ory de fi nit ion on i ts f ac e ap pe ar s to ne ga te fo r immigr at ion pur

pose s th e ef

fe ct of state r eh ab ili ta tiv e m ea sur es that pu rp ort t o ex pu ng e o r ot he rwis e rem ov e a co nv ic ti on .”). R es en diz -A lc araz , how ever, does not r eq uir e us t o ho ld tha t a ll va cate d c onvi ct ion s or nol o c ont en de re ple as , regardless of the cir cum stances, c ontin ue to count as “ convictio ns” under § 1101 (a)( 48)(A) . The a ctual holdi ng of R es en diz -A lc araz- as opp ose d to dic ta in the opi nio n - is that the statut e spe ak s c le ar lyonl y a s to va catur or e xpun ge m en t pur sua nt t o st at e re habil itativ e m ea sur es . T he c onvi ct ion in R es en diz -A lc arazwa s18

not set aside because the alien’ s statuto ryor constitut ional rights we re violated during the und er ly ing c ri mina l pr oc ee din g; i t w as e xpun ge d pu rs ua nt t o astatut e re qui ri ng tha t, w he re se nte nc e is s uspe nde d, the c as e be c los eda nd the c onvi ct ion ex pu ng ed , on ce t he cas e is fin al ly termin at ed . Se e id . a t 12 65. T he situa tio n pr es en te d he re w as not

a ddr es se d in R es en diz -A lc araz , a nd thu s, that decision does no t co nt ro l t hi s ca se . Ind eed , R es en diz -A lc araza cknow le dge d th at it s ho ldi ng d id not gov ern ac as e lik e Mr . A lim ’ s: A s th e Fi rs t C ir cu it ha s no te d, “ [t ] he e m pha sis that C ongr es s placed on the ori gin al admissio n of guilt p lainly indicates that a subs eq ue nt d ism

iss al of c harg es , ba se d so le lyon re habil itativ e goa ls and not on t he m er its of the c harg e or o n a de fe ct in the under ly ing c rim ina l proc ee din g , doe s no t vi tiate that original admissio n.” [ H er re ra- In iri o v. INS , 208 F . 3d 2 99, 3 0 6 (1 s tCi r. 2 0 0 0 )]. Id . at 1270 (em

phasis add ed). A hy pothe tic al he lps to ill ustrate that C ongr es s di d no t e xpr es slya ddr es s th e iss ue be fo re us i n § 1 101( a) (4 8) (A ). S uppo se a n a lie n is c harg edw ith af el ony puni shable by five y ears in prison. T he alien does not sp eak m uch English, has spent on ly a short tim e in the U. S. , a nd is com pletely unfamiliar w ith the America n j udicial sy stem . Although he is indig ent and consti tutio nally entitled to appo inted co un se l, se e G ide on v . W ain wr igh t , 372 U . S. 335 , 343 -4 4 ( 1963 ), no atto rn eyis appoin ted to represent him . He decides, on the advice of his cellm ate, to plead19

gui lty . A t c ha nge of

ple a he aring , the tria l c ourt do es not a dvi se him

of his ba sic co nst itu tio na l righ ts; the c ourt do es not te ll him that he ha s th e ri ght

to a tr ia l by j ury , the r igh t t o te sti fyor not te sti fy , a nd the r igh t t o c ourt- ap poi nte d c ouns el if he is i ndi ge nt. W ith the c ourt’ s e nc our ag emen t – an d w ith out kno w ing e noug h to be able to intellig ently wa ive the right to cou nsel – he pleads gu ilty . The c ourt ad j udi cate s hi m

gui ltya nd s en te nc es him to a y ear in p ri son. A ft er he is se nte nc ed , someo ne in j ai l t el ls h im that the c ourt sh oul d ha ve pr ovi de d hi m w ith an a tto rn eya nd i nf

or m edhim

of his ba sic c onst itu tio na l righ ts. B as edon this inf or m at ion , he f

ile s apr o se not ic e of

appe al to ch al le nge the gui ltyple a an d sentence. The appellate court appoints counsel and, after briefing, notices the trial court’ s obvi ous cons titutio nal error s. B ecause uncounseled conv ictions are pr es umpt iv el y vo id , se e, e.g ., Bur ge tt v. Texa s, 389 U . S. 109 , 115 -1 6 ( 1967 ), the ap pe llate c ourt va cate s th e co nvi ct ion a nd r em an ds the c as e fo r ap pr opria te pr oc ee din gs. A ft er

the r em an d, the state de ci de s no t t o pu rs ue the m atte r an y fu rthe r an d f

ile s aone -l ine m emor an dum a ski ng the tria l c ourt t o c onve rt the dis posi tio n to a

“ nol le pr ose qui . ” T he c ourt gr an ts the r eq ue st, the re byva catin g th e co nv ic ti on , and th e al ie n i s re le as ed fro m cu st od y . If § 1101(a)(48)(A ) did not permit consid eration of anypost-sentence va catur s – r eg ar dle ss o f the r ea son unde rl y ing the va catur in que sti on –the20

co nvi ct ion in our

hy pothe tic al w oul d r em ai n ac onvi ct ion f or immigr at ion purpose s. S o to o w oul d ac onvi ct ion that w as va cate d on appe al ( w ith aj udgmen t of a cq uitta l e nte re d) due to ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce . T he se out co m es are so f or ei gn, so antith etical, to the long -standing principles und erly ing ou r criminal justice sy ste m a nd o ur not ion s of

due pr oc es s th at

w e w oul d e xpe ct

Co ngr es s to ha ve spok en ve ryc le ar lyif

it int en de d to e ff

ec t su ch r es ult s. I t ha s no t, how ev er , don e so . Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. S en ge s, 144 U . S. 310 , 322 ( 1892 ) (“ It is im poss ibl e to pr es ume an int en tio n on the part of Co ngr es s to m ak e so s eriou s a nd f ar -r ea ch ing an in no va ti on in th e cri min al juri sp ru de nc e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.”) . A s w e re ad§ 11 01( a) (4 8) (A ), Co ngr es s di d no t a ddr es s th e ef fe ct to be giv en ac onvi ct ion or

nol o c ont onde re ple a that i s su bse que ntl y va cate d be cause of a d efec t i n t he un de rlyin g c riminal pro ceed in g. Gi ve n t he st at ut or y si le nc e, we turn to see if the BIAhas construed the statut e, and, if so, w hether that construction is entitled to d efer ence under Ch ev ron a n d i t s p r o g e n y. 2. T HE BI A’ S I NTERP RETATIO N T he BI A , in a se ri es of

de ci sio ns, ha s rule d th at

the e ff ec t of asub se que nt ev en t on ac onvi ct ion or

nol o c ont onde re ple a unde r § 11 01( a) (4 8) (A ) de pe nds on w ha t the sub se que nt e ve nt i s. I f va catur or e xpun ge m en t t ak es pla ce pur sua nt t o a state rehabilitative m easure, there is still a conviction for purpo ses of §Resendiz-A lcaraz rea ched this sameresult, thoug h by finding that the statute wa s clea r on 4 the issue. 21 1101 (a)( 48)(A) . If, on the other hand, vacatur occurs because there wa s a legal 4 defect in the underly ing proceeding (i. e. , a violatio n of a constituti onal or statuto ry rig ht ), th en th ere i s n o l on ge r a co nv ic ti on forpu rp os es of t he INA. See , e. g. , In re Roldan-San toya , 22 I & N Dec. 5 12 , 52 2- 23 , 19 99 W L 12 64 33 (BIA 1 99 9) , vac’d sub nom . L uja n-A m en dariz v . I . N. S. , 222 F . 3d 7 28 ( 9th Ci r. 200 0) ; In re R odri gue z- R uiz , 22 I & N D ec . 137 8, 137 9- 80, 200 0 W L137 5514 ( BI A 200 0) ; In re P ic ke rin g , 23 I & N De c. 621, 624, 2003 W L 2135848 0 (BIA2003 ). Re ce ntl y , in a ca se ve rysim ilar to this one , the BI A he ld tha t a n O hio narcotics conviction no lon ger counts for immigration pu rposes if it has been set as ide be cause the de fe nda nt w as not - a s r eq uir edbystate la w - a dvi se d of the immig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is gu il ty ple a. See In re A dam iak , 23 I & N De c. 878, 879 -8 0, 200 6 W L307 908 (B IAF eb . 8, 200 6) ( “ U nde r the se c ir cu m sta nc es , w e fi nd tha t the O hio c ourt’ s va cat[ ur ] of the r es pond en t’ s c onvi ct ion sho uldbe re co gni ze d in immigr at ion pr oc ee din gs. I n th e ab se nc e of astatut ory dir ec tiv e to the c ontrary , w e ar e re qui re d by28 U . S. C. § 17 38 t o gi ve f ull f ai th a nd c re dit

to this state court judgm ent.”) . W e defe r to the BIA ’ s interpretation of a statute if it is rea sonable and d oes22

no t co nt rad ic t t he cle ar i nt en t o f Co ng res s. Se e, e . g. , Jaggerna uth v. U .S. Attorney G en . , 432 F. 3d 13 46, 1350 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). T oday , w e j oin th ose circuits that ha ve fou nd th e BIA’s ap pr oa ch to be reas on ab le an d e nt it le d t o d efer en ce. See Pinho v. Gonzales , 432 F . 3d 1 93, 209 -1 0 ( 3d C ir . 200 5) ( “ G ive n it s lo ng- sta ndi ng, co nsi ste nt p ra ct ic e, the a ge nc y m ayr ea sonablyr ea d th e statut ory la ngua ge analy zed above to authorize its drawing this dis tinction am ong v acated co nvi ct ion s. ”) ; Cr uz- G arz a v . A shc rof t , 396 F. 3d 11 25, 1129 (10t h Cir. 2005 ) (“ In su m , th e tr eat m en t o f va cat ed co nv ic ti on s i s n ow fa irl y well -s et tl ed . N otw ith sta ndi ng the F if

th C ir cu it’ s te nuou s a dhe re nc e to a c at eg or ic al dis re gardof al l va catur s, the ‘ re st o f the na tio n’ ha s take n to the midd le gr oundstake d ou t by the BIAon the basis o f the text and legislative his tory of § 1101(a)(48)(A ). ”); Sand ov al v . I . N. S. , 240 F . 3d 5 77, 583 ( 7th Ci r. 200 1) ( co nvi ct ion didnot c ount unde r § 11 01( a) (4 8) (A ) w he re it w as va cate d pu rs ua nt t o st at e pr oc ed ur e fo r re m ed y ing c onst itu tio na l vi olatio ns, a nd thus, f el l “ out sid e the c at eg ory of [r eh ab ili ta tiv e] statut es dis cu sse d in Roldan-San toya ”) ( decided while R odri gue zR uiz wa s only an interim decision). Onl y th e Fi fth Cir cu itap pa ren tl y di sa gr ees wit h t he BIA’s ap pr oa ch . See R en te ria -G onza le z v . U

. S. A tto rney G en . , 32 2 F .3d 80 4, 8 12 -1 3 (5 th Cir . 20 03 ). O n r ef le ct ion , w e do n ot f

ind R en te ria -G onza le z pe rs ua siv e. F ir st, it s r at ion al e is23

co ntr ary to our s ( an d th at of the T hir d, S ev en th, a nd T en th C ir cu its ). S ec ond, the reasoning of R en te ria -G onza le z wa s strongl y criticize d by a concurring j udge, as well as b y a su bs eq ue ntFif th Cir cu itpa ne l. Se e id . at 8 20 (Ben av id es , J., co nc urri ng) (c ri tic iz ing the m aj or ityf or “ pa int ing w ith too br oa d abrush, ” an d em pha siz ing “ that no ne of

the c onvi ct ion s in the f

ive c as es c ite d bythe m aj or ity was va cat ed ba se d o n t he m eri ts of t he un de rlyin g c riminal pro ceed in g, i .e., a vio la tio n of

astatut ory or

c onst itu tio na l righ t” ); D isc ipi o v . A shc rof t , 369 F . 3d 472, 475 ( 5th Ci r. 200 4) ( “ T hus, ape rs on c om ple te lye xone rate d bythe c ourts m aynonetheless face re m oval as a convicted criminal. W e should interpret statutes to avo id results so patently absurd, . .. and constit ution ally question able.” ) (ci ta ti on s o mit te d) , va c’ d on de nia l of re he ari ng e n ba nc , 417 F . 3d 4 48, 450 ( 5th Ci r. 20 05 ). Thatcri ti ci sm , in ou r vi ew, was wel l-f ou nd ed . 3. A P P LICATI ON OF THE BI A A P P ROACH A ft er r emova l pr oc ee din gs c omm en ce d, Mr . A lim f ile d ape tit ion f

or aw ri t of e rr or c or am nob is i n th e Fl or ida

c ir cu it co urt w he re he ple d no c ont es t t o domes tic ba tte ry . H is p et iti on s pe ci fi ca llya lle ge d th at , a t the ti m e of his ple a, the co urt di d no t a dvi se him

that he c oul d be de porte d. Mr . A lim ’ s pe tit ion spe ci fi ca llym en tio ne d R ule 3.172 of the Florida Rules of Crim inal Procedure. Ru le 3. 172( c) (8 ) re qui re s th at ac ourt a cc ep tin g aple a inf or m the de fe nda nt24

“ that i f he or

she is not

aU nit edS ta te s c iti ze n, the ple a m aysub j ec t hi m or he r to d ep o rt at i o n ... ” Wh er e t h e d ef en d an tp ro v es h e h as b ee n p re ju d i ce d , aco u rt ’s failure to inform

him of this pot ential consequence renders the plea void as in vo lu nt ary. Se e, e . g. , P ea rt v . Flor ida , 756 S o. 2d 4 2, 45- 46 ( Fl a. 200 0) ; M arr iot t v. Flor ida , 605 S o. 2d 9 85, 987 -8 8 ( Fl a. 4th D CA199 2) . A pe tit ion f or w ri t of er ro r co ra m nob is i s th e m ethod byw hic h a n ou t- of -c ust odyc ri mina l de fe nda nt i n Fl or id a can va cat e su ch an in vo lu nt ary pl ea. Se e P ea rt , 756 S o. 2d at 45 -4 6; Flor ida v . Se raph in , 81 8 S o.2 d 4 85 , 48 7 (F la . 20 02 ). T he state r es pond edto Mr . A lim ’ s c or am nob is p et iti on b y f

ili ng a one -p ag e m emor an dum

a ski ng the c le rk

to co nve rt

the dis posi tio n of

the c as e to a

“ nol le pr os eq ui .” T he state c ourt c le rk sub se que ntl y f

ile d aone -p ag e doc umen t gr an tin g th e st at e’s req ue st , th ereb y sh owi ng th atth e n o c on te stpl ea was va cat ed . T he BI A ’ s de ci sio n in A dam iak is dir ec tlyon p oin t. L ike O hio la w , F lorida la w r eq uir es that a

c ourt i nf or m ac ri mina l de fe nda nt w ho i s no t a c iti ze n of

the immigr at ion c onse que nc es of his ple a. L ike the de fe nda nt i n Ada mia k, Mr . A lim w as not inf or m edof thi s c onse que nc e, a s r eq uir edbystate la w . A nd l ike the de fe nda nt’ s pl ea

in Ada mia k, Mr. Alim ’ s plea wa s vacated to remedy this legal de fe ct in the und er ly ing c ri mina l pr oc ee din g. Mr . A lim ’ s 19 98 n o c ont es t pl ea to do m es ti c b at te ry is th eref or e n o l on ge r a “ co nv ic ti on ” u nd er § 11 01 (a)( 48 )(A).25

Se e A dam iak , 23 I & N D ec . a t 87 9- 880. T he onl y dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n A dam iak and this case is that the state court or de r va catin g th e de fe nda nt’ s c onvi ct ion in Adamiak expressly noted the state law pur sua nt t o w hic h th e co nvi ct ion w as va cate d. T he state c ourt or de r he re doe s no t m en tio n R ule 3.172. It merelym entions the prosecutor’ s mem orandum , w hich al so d oe s no t c ite to Ru le 3.172. T hus, it could be argued that while we know that the c onvi ct ion in A dam iak w as va cate d to r emed y avio la tio n of aspe ci fi edr igh t, we m ay n o tk n o w e x ac t l y wh y M r. Al i m ’s p l eawa s v ac at ed . B ec au s e M r. Al i m ’s ple a co uldha ve be en va cate d f or r ea sons oth er

tha n to r emed y avio la tio n of Ru le 3.1 72 , per ha ps itsh ou ld st il l b e tr eat ed as a“ co nv ic ti on ” u nd er § 11 01 (a)( 48 )(A). T he gov ernmen t, in fa ct , r ai se d th is p oin t at or al arg umen t. Bu t w e se e no r ea son w hyw e ca nnot loo k to Mr . A lim ’ s c or am nob is pe ti ti on forth e rea so n u nd erl y in g t he st at e co ur t’s d eci si on to va cat e th e p le a. Tha t, i n fa ct , is whatth e BIA an d t he fed eral co ur ts ha ve do ne . Se e, e.g ., P ic ke rin g , 23 I & N D ec . a t 62 5 ( BI A turne d to the a ff ida vit of a lie n in sup port of his pe tit ion to va cate his c onvi ct ion be cause the Ca na dia n c ourt’ s or de r didnot re fe re nc e an y la w pur sua nt t o w hic h th e co nvi ct ion w as va cate d) ; P ihn o , 432 F . 3d at 215 (“ If the order

does not g ive a clear statement of rea sons , the a gency m ay loo k to the r ec or d be fo re the c ourt w he n th e or de r w as iss ue d. ”) . O n th is r ec or d,26

w e ha ve no r ea son to d oubt that M r. A lim ’ s pl ea

w as va cate d f

or the r ea son pr ovi de d in his pe tit ion . T his is part ic ularl y so b ec au se the state didnot c ha lle nge or c ont es t M r. A lim ’ s f

ac tua l a lle ga tio ns. In sum , the 1998 no cont est plea w as vacated to re m edy a violation o f Mr. Alim ’ s rights un der Florida law . Under the B IA ’ s interpretation of § 1101 (a )( 48) (A ), to w hic h w e de fe r, Mr . A lim is not “ co nvi ct ed ” of

domes tic ba tt ery fo r immig rat io n p urpo se s. Be cau se Mr. Ali m was n otco nv ic te d o f two crimes inv olv ing m or al tur pitude , 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( a) (2 )( C) doe s no t stri p us of s u b je ct -mat t erju ri s d i ct i o n o v erh i s p et i t i o n . We n o w t u rn t o th e g o v er n m en t ’s ar gumen t tha t w e la ck

sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er spe ci fi c cl ai m s. B. E XHAUSTIO N OF A DMINIS TRATIV E R EMEDIES The government argues that we lack subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n because Mr. Alim failed to exhaust his administrative rem edies as to each cla im for r elief that he m ade througho ut his rem oval proceedings. As noted ear lier, Mr. Alim raised fi ve dif fe re nt c la im s a t vari ous poi nts in the r emova l pr oc ee din gs: ( 1) c an ce llatio n of r emova l un de r 8 U . S. C. § 12 29b; ( 2) a sy lum und er 8 U . S. C. § 11 58; ( 3) withholdi ng of rem oval und er 8 U .S .C. § 1231 (b)(3); ( 4) withholdin g of rem oval unde r the CA T ; a nd ( 5) a dj ust m en t of status und er

8 U . S. C. § 12 55. W e do n ot consider the claim

for adj ustm ent of status und er 8 U .S .C. § 1255 because Mr .27

Ali m ha s ab an do ne d i t o n a pp eal . Se e Se pul ve da v . U

. S. A tto rney G en . , 401 F . 3d 1226 , 122 8 n. 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e dis miss the c la im f or a sy lum f or la ck of subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n on adif fe re nt g ro und, a nd d ism

iss the c an ce llatio n of r e mo v a l c l a i m b e c a u s e th a tc l a i m w a s n o tr a i s e d b e f o r e th e B I A . A s t o th e c l a i ms fo r w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ), a nd w ith hol din g of re m ova l un de r the CA T , w e co nc lud e that M r. A lim e xhaust edhis a dmini str at ive re m ed ie s, a nd r ea ch the m erits of tho se c la im s. 1. A S YLUM A lth ough the part ie s di d no t brie f thi s sp ec if ic iss ue , w e ar e “ obl igate d to inqu ire into subject-m atter j urisdictio n sua spo nte whenever it m aybe lacking.” Ch ac on- B ote ro v . U

. S. A tto rney G en . , 427 F . 3d 9 54, 956 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (quotation s omitted). A n alien m aynot apply for asy lum “ unless [he] dem onstrates by clear

and convin cing evidence that the application has been filed wit hi n 1 y ear a fte r th e d at e o f th e al ie n’s arriv al in th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a )( 2) (B ). A n un timel y appl ic at ion m aybe c onsi de re d in c erta in ci rc um sta nc es :

A n appl ic at ion f

or a sy lum m aybe c onsi de re d no tw ith sta ndi ng subp ar ag raphs (B ) an d ( C) , if thea lie n de m onstrate s to the sa tis fa ct ion of

the A tto rn eyG en er al e ith er the e xis te nc e of ch an g ed ci rc u m s t an ce s wh i ch m at er i al l y af fe ctth e a p p l i ca n t ’s el igi bil ityf

or a sy lum or e xtr ao rd inaryc ir cu m sta nc es r el at ing to28 the de la y in fi lin g a n appl ic at ion w ith in the pe ri od s pe ci fi edin subp aragraph (B). 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (2 )( D ). Q ue sti ons of ti m el ine ss a nd the appl ic ab ili tyof the se ex ce pti ons ar e le ft

e xc lus ive lyto the A tto rn eyG en er al . T he imm ed ia te ly s u b s eq u en tp ro v i s i o n , e n t i t l ed “ Li mi t at i o n o n ju d i ci al re v i ew ,” p ro v i d es th at“ [n ]o court shall have jurisdiction to review anydetermination of the A ttorney Ge neral under paragraph (2). ” 8 U .S .C. § 1158 (a)( 3). A cc or din g to § 11 58( a) (3 ), ac ourt do es not ha ve sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n to rev ie w an a sylum

ap pl ic at io n t ha t i s d en ie d a s u nt im el y un de r § 1 15 8( a)(2 )(B) . See F ahim v. U. S. A ttorn ey G en . , 278 F . 3d 1 216, 121 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( “ W e j oin the 8th a nd 9 th C ir cu its in hol din g th at the la ngua ge of

8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (3 ) precludes feder al court review of determ ination s m ade by the AttorneyGe neral pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) .”). Se e als o Ch ac on- B ote ro , 427 F . 3d at 95 6- 957; Sanc he z v . U

. S. A tto rney G en . , 153 Fed. Appx. 698, 699 (11th Cir. 2005). The IJ d en ie d M r. Ali m ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m pu rs ua ntto § 1 15 8( a)(2 ). H is o ra l de ci sio n, a s it

r el at es to Mr . A lim ’ s a sy lum appl ic at ion , pr ovi de s: FU RT H E R O RD E RE D r es pond en t’ s appl ic at ion of a sy lum is untim ely and he has failed to establish an exception al ci rc um sta nc e of

c ha nge d c ountryc ondi tio n to w ar ra nt i ts co nsi de ratio n. A . R. a t 47 . T he I J th us d en ie d th e as y lum appl ic at ion be cause it

w as unt imel y29

unde r § 11 58( a) (2 )( B) , a nd b ec au se Mr . A lim f ai le d to sho w c ha nge d or ex tr ao rd inaryc ir cu m sta nc es und er § 11 58( a) (2 )( D ) to w ar

ra nt i ts l at e co ns id erat io n. A r ev ie w of

Mr . A lim ’ s a sy lum

c la im w oul d ne ce ssari lye nta il a re vie w of the IJ’ s basis for deny ing it. The B IA aff irmed the IJ’ s decision withou t an op in io n, an d t hu s, t he IJ’s d eci si on is th e fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al . Se e Se pul ve da , 401 F.3d at 1230 . Because Mr. Alim ’ s asy lum application was denied under § 1158 (a)( 2), w e lack subje ct-m atter j urisdictio n pursuantto § 115 8(a)( 3) to review th e fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al as i t p ert ai ns to th e as y lu m cla im . See Ch ac on- B ote ro , 427 F. 3d at 95 6- 957; F

ahi m , 278 F . 3d at 12 18. 2. R EMAINING C L A I MS A c ourt m ayreview a final order of removal onl y if “ the alien has exhausted al l ad min is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to th e al ie n a s o f ri gh t[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1). T his requirem ent is jurisdictional, “ so we lac k jurisdiction over claim s that have not b een ra ised before the BI A. ” Sundar v. I NS , 328 F . 3d 1 320, 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Se e als o F er nandez -B er

nal , 25 7 F .3d at 1 31 7 n .13 . Cf . Asencio v. INS , 37 F . 3d 6 14, 615 -6 16 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( int er pr et ing pr ed ec es sor exhaustio n provis ion, 8 U. S. C. § 110 5a(c)) .

a. C AN CE LL AT ION OF R EMOVAL UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1229 bOne pr ere quisite for cancellation of removal is that the alien “ha s been phy sically prese nt 5 in the Un ite d State s fo r a c on tin uo us pe ri odof no t le ss than 1 0 y e ars imm e diate ly pr e c e din g thedate of such a pplication.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (A). 30 Mr . A lim arg ue s th at

the I J e rr edin de ny ing his r eq ue st f or c an ce llatio n of re m ova l pu rs ua nt t o 8 U . S. C. § 12 29b. A t so m e time be fo re the S ep te m be r 28, 2000 , he aring , Mr . A lim ’ s c ouns el sub mitt eda n appl ic at ion f or c an ce llatio n of re m ova l. A ft er

not ing that M r. A lim

didnot m ee t the 10- y ear co nti nuou s re sid en ce r eq uir emen t t o be e lig ibl e fo r ca nc el la tio n of r emova l, the I J r etur ne d th e ap pli catio n to Mr . A lim ’ s c ouns el , w ith out obj ec tio n. W e w ill a ssu m e that this

5 co nst itu te d ade nia l of

the appl ic at ion on the m erits bytheI J. B ut i n hi s appe al to the BI A , Mr . A lim

ne ve r dis cu sse d th e m erits of his appl ic at ion f

or c an ce llatio n of re m ova l, le t a lon e the I J’ s ba sis f or de ny ing it . N ei the r his pr oc ed ur al sum m ary of the pr oc ee din gs b ef

or e the I J, nor

his pr ay er

f or r el ie f, m en tio ne d hi s appl ic at ion fo r ca nc el la tio n of

r emova l. Mr . A lim

the re fo re f

ai le d to e xhaust

his ad mini str at ive r emed ie s in r eg ar d to his appl ic at ion f or c an ce llatio n of

r emova l, an d t hu s, we l acksu bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ov er t hi s cl ai m . See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d )( 1) ; Sund

ar , 328 F . 3d at 13 23; A se nc io , 37 F . 3d at 61 5- 16. b. W ITHH OLD ING OF R EMOVAL UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b )( 3) AND THE CAT The government argues that we lack subjec t-m atter j urisdictio n over Mr. A lim ’ s c la im s f

or w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d th e31

CA T be cause Mr . A lim

f ai le d to e xhaust

his a dmini str at ive r emed ie s. T he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th atMr. Ali m rai se d b ot h o f th es e cl ai m s b efo re t he IJ. See Brie f fo r Re spon de nt at 35 , 36. I t f urthe r co nc ed es that the Ma y 20, 200 3, ev ide nti ary he aring pr im arilyc onsi ste d of te sti m onyf

ro m Mr . A lim

in supp ort of th es e two cla im s. See Brief for Re spon dent at 10-12. It ar gues, however , that Mr . A lim didnot r ai se e ith er

of the se c la im s in his br ie f to the BI A . A cc or din g to the governm ent, Mr . A lim ’ s brief only argued the merits of the asy lum claim , r ather tha n th e § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d C A T c la im s. I t r ec ogni ze s th at Mr . A lim

r ef er re d to the § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d C A T c la im s in both hi s pr oc ed ur al sum m aryof the pr oc ee din gs be fo re the I J a nd i n hi s pr ay er f or r el ie f, but

it c onsi de rs the se to be pa ssi ng refe ren ces to th e cl ai m s, ra th er t ha n a ct ua l p res en ta ti on s o f th e cl ai m s t o t he BIA. W e dis ag re e w ith the gov ernmen t tha t M r. A lim m ad e onl y pa ssi ng refe rences to his § 123 1(b)(3) and CA T c laim s before the BI A, and conclude that Mr . A lim e xhaust edhis a dmini str at ive r emed ie s. H is p ro ce dur al sum m ary of the ca se e xpr es slystate d th at the iss ue s de ci de d bythe I J “ co nc erne d hi s appl ic at ion s for re lief fr om

withholdin g of rem oval und er [ IN A] section 241 (b)(3)( A) [§ 12 31 (b )(3 )(A)] and pro te ct io n u nd er t he Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re.” A.R. 6 . T he se w er e the onl y tw o c la im s th at the I J he ar d e vid en ce on. T he br ie f al so reco un ts th e IJ ’s fact ua l fi nd in gs , and leg al co nc lu si on s, o n t he m eri ts of t he se twoIn his pray er f or re lief in his BIA brief

, Mr. Alim c ited § 1253(h), instead of § 1231(b)( 3), 6 but we view this is as a me re sc rivene r’s e rror . As noted ea rlier, § 1253( h), re peale d in 1996, is the prede cessor

to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Mr. A lim cited § 1231(b)(3) in the proce dural summary of his BIA brief. 32 cl ai m s. T he br ie f ar gue s th at the I J e rr edin de te rm

ini ng tha t M r. A lim

didnot m ake a c redible witness, a finding that cou ld onl y be rele vant to th e merits of Mr. A lim ’ s § 1 231( b) (3 ) an d C A T c la im s. T he br ie f the n f or m al lyr eq ue sts that the BI A w ith hol d r emova l un de r the I N A a nd/ or the CA T , w ith spe ci fi c re fe re nc es to 6 the appl ic ab le f

ed er al statut es a nd r eg ulatio ns. T hus, w e pr oc ee d to the m erits of Mr. Al im ’s cla im s fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r § 1 23 1( b) (3 ) an d t he CAT. III . M ERITS The B IA aff

irmed the IJ’ s oral decision without an o pinio n. “ W hen the BIA summ arilyaff

irm s the IJ’ s decision withou t an opini on, the IJ’ s decision b ecomes the final removal order.” Se pul ve da , 4 0 1 F. 3 d at1 2 3 0 . We r ev i ew th e I J ’s decision “ as if it w ere the Board’ s.” A l N ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 4 (11th Cir. 2001). A. L EGAL S TANDARDS T he I J’ s f ac tua l f ind ing that “ an a lie n is statut or ilyine lig ibl e for. .. withholdi ng is reviewed under the substantial evid ence test. ” Id . a t 12 83 (quotation s omitted). T hat is, “ we m ust affirm the IJ’ s decision if it is su pported33

by rea sonable, substan tial, a nd probativ e evidence on the rec ord as a w hole.” Se pul ve da , 401 F. 3d at 123 0 (quotatio ns omitted). T his is a “ high ly defer ential standard of review ,” and “ the IJ’ s decision can be reversed only if the evidence com pels a rea sonable fact finder to find otherwise. ” Id . ( ci ta tio ns o mitt ed ). T hus, the evidence m

ust com pel, r ather than merelysuppo rt, the conclusio n that the IJ erre d. Se e F

ahi m , 27 8 F .3d at 1 21 8. A n I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio ns are a lso f

ac tua l f ind ing s, a nd thus, are a lso su bje ct to the subs tantial evidence test, a nd m aynot be overturned un le ss th e rec or d c ompe ls th atres ul t. Se e D -M uhum ed v . U . S. A tto rney G en . , 388 F. 3d 8 14, 818 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ; F orgu e v. U

. S. A tto rney G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 1287 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . A s th e tr ie r of f ac t, the I J “ m

ust de te rm ine c re dib ili ty , a nd thi s c ourt m aynot

sub sti tut e its j udgmen t f or that of the [ IJ ] w ith r es pe ct

to credibility findings .” D- Muhumed , 38 8 F .3d at 8 18 . Se e als o F orgu e , 401 F. 3d at 1286 . O nc e the I J m ak es a n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n, the bur de n is on the al ie n to sho w that the de te rm inatio n “ w as not

sup porte d byspe ci fi c, c oge nt reasons, or w as not based on subst antial evidence.” F orgu e , 401 F . 3d at 12 87. An alien is entitled to withhold ing of rem oval und er § 1231(b)(3) if he c an show that hi s “ lif

e or f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d in that c ountrybe cause of the al ie n’ s r ac e, r el igi on, na tio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or34

pol iti ca l op ini on. ” 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 )( A ). T he a lie n “ be ar s th e bur de n of de m onstratin g th at

it is m or e lik el y tha n no t he w ill be pe rs ec ute d or tortur edupo n being returned to his country .” Se pul ve da , 401 F. 3d at 123 2. P ersecution is an

“ extreme concept requiring m ore than a fe w isolated incidents of verbal hara ssmen t or

int imidatio n, ” an d “ m er e hara ssmen t do es not a m ount to persecution.” Id . a t 12 31. An al ie n i s en ti tl ed to wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e CAT if he sh ows t h a ti ti s “mo r e l i k e l y t h a n n o tth a th e w i l l b e t o r t u r e d u p o n h i s r e t u r n t o h i s h o me co un try.” 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ). See also Cadet v. B ulger , 377 F . 3d 1 173, 118 0 (11th Cir. 2004). “ Torture ” is “ any act bywhich severe pain or suffering, whether phy sic al or

m en ta l, is int en tio na llyinf lic te d on ape rs on. . . byor

a t the ins tig at ion of a p ub li c o ffi ci al or o th er p ers on act in g i n a n o ffi ci al cap aci ty.” 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 8( a)(1 ). Se e als o D- Muhumed , 3 8 8 F . 3 da t8 1 9

- 2 0 . T o r t u r e “i s a n e x tr e me fo rm of c ru el a nd i nhum an tr eatmen t a nd d oe s no t i nc lud e le sse r fo rm s of c ru el , inhu m an or degrading treatment or punis hm ent that do no t am ountto torture.” 8 C.F .R. § 208.18(a)(2). In his pe tit ion he re , Mr . A lim ba se s hi s § 1 231( b) (3 ) an d C A T arg umen ts o n the a sse rt edpr obabil itythat he w ill suf fe r pe rs ec uti on a nd/ or

tortur e on a cc ount

of his Ch ri sti an f

ai th i f re m ove d to S y ri a. F ir st, he arg ue s th at the I J e rr edin m akingI f an alie n d e mon str ate s p a st p e rs e c uti on , th e reis a rebu tta blepr e su mptionthat hewi ll 7 suffe r futureperse cution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)( 1). We do not disc uss the merits of Mr. Alim’s CAT claim insofar as it could be ba sed on the 8 possibili ty

that he could be tortured for de serting the military . In his briefs here, Mr. Alim’s CAT claim is based entirely on the pos sibili ty of t orture for being a Christian. Thus, he has a bandoned any other ba sis for his CAT claim. See Se pulveda , 401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2. 35 an adverse cr edibilit y determination against him . Second, he c ontend s that the IJ erre d in failing to find that he suffered past persec ution on account of his Christian fa ith w hil e liv ing in Sy ri a. T hir d, he a sse rt s th at the I J’ s de ci sio n is not

ba se d on 7 subs ta nti al e vid en ce , a nd tha t the e vid en ce c om pe ls the c onc lus ion that he is en tit le d to w ith hol din g of r emova l un de r both § 1 231( b) (3 ) an d th e CA T , be cause he w ill m or e lik el y tha n no t be pe rs ec ute d a nd/ or tortur edf

or be ing aCh ri sti an if rem oved to Sy ria. 8 B. R EVIEW OF THE IJ’ S F ACTUAL F INDI NGS T he I J’ s c re dib ili tyde te rm inatio ns w er e spe ci fi c, c oge nt, a nd s uppo rt edby subs tantial evidence. T he IJ doubted Mr. A lim ’ s credibility because he committed m ult ipl e ac ts o f fr au d: Mr . A lim de se rt edthe S y ri an a ir

f or ce , e xit edS y ri a ill eg al ly , e nte re d th e U . S. byf raud, f al se lystate d th at

he ha d no t be en c onvi ct edof a crime w he n he appl ie d f or a dj ust m en t of

status , a nd the n, a ft er

vis iti ng S y ri a in 1999 f or 30 d ay s, e xit edS y ri a byf raud. T he I J a lso dou bte d w he the r Mr . A lim w oul d a ctua llybe pe rs ec ute d or tortur ed , giv en that he spe nt s ix months i n S y ri a36

af te r de se rt ing the mili taryw ith out be ing c ap tur ed , a nd w ill ing lyr etur ne d to S y ri a in 199 9 for 30 day s to vis it his m other. H e further noted an incon sistency in Mr. A lim ’ s te sti m ony . Mr . A lim f ir st t es tif ie d th at , in 1999 , he r e- en te re d S y ri a w ith a fa lse pa ssp ort, but

la te r te sti fi edthat the pa ssp ort w as va lid , but m er el y inc orre ct ly spe lle d hi s na m e. T he I J th en e xpl ai ne d th at thi s st ill c onst itu te d f

raud. W e fi nd the se de te rm

inatio ns are w el l- supp orte d bythe r ec or d a nd f indnothin g c om

pe lli ng us t o c onc lud e that the I J w as w ro ng. Mo re ove r, w e not e that the se c re dib ili ty de te rmin at io ns were b uta sm al l p artof t he fact ua l b as is forth e IJ ’s con cl us io ns . T hose c onc lus ion s w er e pr im arilyba se d on Mr . A lim ’ s in ab ili tyto artic ulate specific instances wher e he w as persecuted or tortured, and the lack of evidence sugg esting th at Mr. Alim would be persecuted or tortured if r em oved to Sy ria. The I J found th at Mr. Alim ’ s case w as based on his cousin bein g killed after le av ing S y ri a to f

igh t a w ar in L eb an on o n be ha lf

of Ch ri sti an s. H e fo und thi s ev ide nc e unc onvi nc ing be cause Mr . A lim ha d no f ir st- ha nd know le dge of

the ci rc um sta nc es of

his c ousi n’ s de ath, he c oul d no t pr oduc e a de ath c ertif ic at e or o t h e r p h ys i c a l e v i d e n c e , a n d th e p e r s o n w h o i n f o r me d h i m me r e l y s h o w e d h i m a pic tur e of the c ousi n si tti ng o n to p of a n I sr ae li ta nk. T he I J w as a lso not co nvi nc edthat M r. A lim ’ s e xpe ri en ce in the mili tarysup porte d hi s c la im s. H is supe ri or s kn ew he w as aCh ri sti an , but he w as ne ve r harmedf

or be ing aCh ri sti an ,37

se rv edf or e igh t y ears , a nd w as ne ve r ar re ste d, de ta ine d or

im pr iso ne d w hil e in the mili taryf or a nyr ea son. T he I J f

urthe r not edthat M r. A lim w as ne ve r ar

re ste d or de ta ine d w hil e in S y ri a during his c ivi lia n li fe . A cc or din g to the I J, the re w as no re as on t o f

indthat M r. A lim

w oul d be pe rs ec ute d a nd/ or tortur edf

or be ing Christian if removed to Sy ria today , bec ause he w as not persecuted and/or tortured fo r be ing aCh ri sti an w he n he li ve d in S y ri a. H e fo und Mr . A lim ’ s te sti m onyto be too va gue a nd c onc lus ory to w ar ra nt w ith hol din g of

r emova l un de r § 12 31( b) (3 ) orth e CAT. T he se f ind ing s are a lso sup porte d bysub sta nti al e vid en ce . Mr . A lim c oul d not expl ain how he knew w hy his cousi n was killed, or how he knew who killed him . T he f

am ilym em be r w ho t oldhim

that hi s c ousi n w as kil le d di d no t ha ve first-hand knowledge of the circum stances of the m urder either. N or could Mr. A lim pr ovi de ade ath c ertif

ic at e or oth er c orro bor at ing e vid en ce . Mo re ove r, the ev ide nc e re gard ing Mr . A lim ’ s c ousi n e qua llysup porte d th e co nc lus ion that he wa s killed because he was a spy for I srael, instead of on account of his Christian fa ith . N or

didMr . A lim

pr ovi de e vid en ce c om

pe lli ng u s to c onc lud e that he w oul d be the targ et

of a nype rs ec uti on o r tortur e in S y ri a be cause of somethin g that happe ne d to his c ousi n, in Leba no n, d ur in g aciv il war. Se e, e . g. , R oy v. A shc rof t , 389 F . 3d 1 32, 140 ( 5th Ci r. 200 4) ( pe tit ion er didnot sho w that he w oul d38

m or e lik el y tha n no t be tortur edif r emove d, w he re e vid en ce c onc erne d “ his fathe r’ s br oth er -i n- la w , a nd h is f athe r’ s ne phe w , ” an d pe tit ion er “ w as not pr es en t w he n hi s f

am ilym em be rs w er e ar

re ste d, hara sse d, or

be at en ”) . I n su m , the evidence regar ding Mr. Alim ’ s cousin does not compel us to conclu de that Mr. Alim suffere d past persecution o r torture, or w ill m ore likely than not su ffer persecution or torture if re m oved to Sy ria. Mr . A lim ’ s te sti m onyof

his c ivi lia n li fe a s aCh ri sti an in Sy ri a larg el y co nsi ste d of

va gue state m en ts tha t S y ri anCh ri sti an s are dis criminate d a ga ins t a nd ha ve tr oubl e fi ndi ng w ork. H e te sti fi edthat S y ri an Mu sli m s f ee l the y w ill go t o heaven for killing a Christian, but he never testified as to any specific instance w he re he w as pe rs ec ute d or tortur ed . H e te sti fi edthat w hil e liv ing in Sy ri a, he w as am em

be r of aCh ri sti an gr oup that tri edto co nve rt Mu sli m s a nd tha t this upse t the Mu sli m

auth or iti es . H e m en tio ne d a n in sta nc e w he re his f ri en d w as sho t in 1 987 or

198 8 f or be ing a n ou tsp oke n C hr ist ia n. H e ne ve r te sti fi ed , how ev er , to an ins ta nc e w he re he w as pe rs ec ute d or tortur edf

or c onve rt ing Mu sli m s to Christianity . He did say that, on acc ountof his Christian faith, ce rtain unidenti fied pe opl e w en t “ af

te r him , ” the re w as a“ ba d po int ” or “ bla ck poi nt” in his sc hool records, and there w ere “ negative reports” about him . But these statem ents wer e vague, and even if true, do not com pel us to find that he wa s (or w ill be)39

pe rs ec ute d or

tortur ed . Mr . A lim w as in the S y ri an mili taryf or e igh t y ears , w as aCh ri sti an w he n he en te re d th e mili tary , a nd w as kno w n to be aCh ri sti an thr ough out his te nur e in the mili tary . H e te sti fi edthat C hr ist ia ns are dis criminate d a ga ins t i n th e mili tary , a nd that he w as tr eate d ba dlya nd d en ie d c erta in righ ts w hil e in the mili tary . B ut h e fa ile d to pr ovi de a nye xpl an at ion or de ta il as to the na tur e of

the dis criminatio n or

“ ba d” tre at m en t. No r di d h e ex pl ai n wh atrig ht s o f hi s wer e v io la te d, o r ho w. Mi lit ary auth or iti es kne w that he w as a n “ out spok en ” Ch ri sti an w hil e he w as in th e mil it ary, y ethe was n ev er arres te d, d et ai ne d o r im pr is on ed foran y reas on . In de ed , he w as pr om ote d a t l ea st o nc e during tho se e igh t y ears . At the ve rym ost , Mr . A lim ’ s te sti m onyde sc ri be s in sta nc es of hara ssmen t an d i nt imid at io n, b ut“ m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on ,” Se pul ve da , 40 1 F .3d at 1 23 1. Se e als o Sanchez , 153 Fed. Appx. at 701 (petitio ner didnot e stabli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on o r that he w oul d m or e lik el y tha n no t be persecuted if r em oved, w here only evidence offe red w as that he rec eived thr eate nin g te le phon e ca lls f ro m gue rrill a gr oup, a nd f

oundhis c ar

w ind ow shattered and a threate ning note attached to a rock in the car ). Mr. Alim wa s certa inly not tortured. In essence, the “ record lac ks sufficient evidence that an y one in [S y ri a] ha s th e pr es en t i nc lin at ion to pe rs ec ute ” or tortur e Mr . A lim

f or40

be in g aCh ris ti an . F

ahi m , 27 8 F .3d at 1 21 8.

IV. C ONCLUS ION W e have subje ct-m atter j urisdictio n over the petition because Mr . A lim has not been conv icted of two c rimes involv ing m oral turpitude. T he term

“ convictio n,” a s defined in § 11 01(a)(48)(A ), does not in clude a nolo contend ere ple a or c onvi ct ion that ha s be en va cate d on the m erits to re m ed y avio la tio n of constitu tional or statut ory rights. T he 1998 dom estic batteryplea w as vacated because Mr. Alim

wa s not in formed of the immigration cons equences of his plea, as required byFlorida law , a nd therefore is not a conviction for purpo ses of § 1101 (a)( 48)(A) . Al t h o u g h we ar e n o ts tri p p ed o f s u b je ct -mat t erju ri s d i ct i o n o v erMr . Al i m ’s petition , w e only exerc ise j urisdictio n over his claim s for w ithho lding of removal unde r § 12 31( b) (3 ) an d th e CA T . W e do n ot a ddr es s th e ad j ust m en t of

status cl ai m be cause it

ha s be en aba ndon edon appe al . T he a sy lum c la im c an not be j udi ci al lyr ev ie w edbe cause it w as de nie d a s un timel y , a nd M r. A lim f ai le d to ex haust his a dmini str at ive r emed ie s a s to the c an ce llatio n of r emova l c la im . A s to t h e c l ai m s u n d er§ 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ) a n d th e C AT, s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce s u p p o rt s th e I J ’s fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns . Mr . A lim ’ s pe tit ion is DIS M I SSE D I N PART an d DE NI E D I N P ART .