Soldatchenkov’s c laims for asy lum and withhol ding of remova l under the I NA and CAT a

re 1 based solely

on his status as Borbodoe va’s husba nd. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0228n.06 Filed: May

2, 2008 No. 06-4476 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

AKB ARIBO RBODO EVA e t al., Pe tit ion e rs , v. MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, Attorney

Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be for e : R

YA N, SILE R, and C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. P ER C URIAM . L ead pe titioner Akbari B orbodoeva and her husband, Aleksa

ndr Soldatchenkov, petition for r eview of the orde r of the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”) upholding the de cis i on of the I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) de ny ing B orbodoeva ’s application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) , and withholding of r emoval under the C onvention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). Petitioners arg ue that the 1 I J err ed by

(1) holding that extraordinary circ umstances did not e x cuse he r fa ilure to file her asylum
a pp lic a tio n w ith in o ne y e a r o f a rr iva l in the Un ite d St a te s, (2 ) f

a ili ngto m a ke an e xplic it c re dib ili ty det er m i n at i on, (3) holding that country conditions in Ky

rg y zst an have chang ed such that she no- 2 -

longe r has a

rea sonable fe ar of

perse cution, and (4) incorre ctly interpre ting prec edent g overningthe leg al standar ds for withhol d i n g o f re m o v al. B eca use none of

their ar g uments has any

merit, we DENY the petition for re view. BACK GR OUND Bor bodoeva is a

native and citizen of Ky

rg y zst an who arr ived in the United States in October 2000, as a nonimmig rant visitor authoriz ed to re main until April 27, 2001. S he mar ried Sol datc he nk ov , a

nativ e a nd

c iti zen of Rus sia , in

Ma y 20 02 in N e va da . So ldatc he nk ov arr ive d in the United States on a nonimmigra nt B -2 visa in Ma

y 1999, with a

uthorization to rema in until May 9, 2000. Both a d m i t t ed t h at t hey rema ined in the United States beyond the per iod for which the y
wer e author ized to remain. Bor bodoeva filed an asylum a pplication in Aug ust 2002, more than one y ear afte r she a

rrived in the United States. She claimed that extraordinary circ umstances excused her failure to submit her application within the one- y ear time limi t. See 8 C. F. R. § 1208.4(a)( 2)(i) & (a) (5). She soug ht asylum based on her

political opinion and membership in a particular soc ial g roup. She joined the A r - N a m y s o p p o s i t i o n p o l i t i c a l p a rt y i n M a y 1 9 9 9 a n d w a s v e r y a c t i v e i n t h e p a rt y l e a d i ng up to
e l e c t i o n s . S h e a c t e d a s a j o u r n a l i s t b y p r e p a r i n g a rt i c l e s a b o u tt h e e l e c t i o n a tt h e r e qu e s to f t h e p a rt y. She re c ounte d v a ri ou s e pis od e s o f h a ra ssm e nt a nd mis tr e a tme nt at th e ha

nd s o f p oli tic a l op po ne nts , inc lud ingg ov e rn me nt o ff ic ia ls, a nd

c la ime d th a t sh e wo uld

be su bje c t to tor

tur e up on re tur

n to Ky rg y zst an. The I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service initiated removal proc eeding s ag ainst them p u rs u an t t o § 240 of the I NA. The I J denied he r asy lum application as untimely , holding that he r failure to file within the one-y ear time limi t was not excused by extraordinary circ umstances. The- 3 -

I J reje cted he r cla ims for withholding of r emoval under the I NA and CAT be caus e countr y
c on dit ion s h a d c ha

ng e d. Th e I J ord e re d bo th be re mov e d a nd de po rt e d. Th e B I A d ism iss e d th e ir appea l, closely

following the I J ’s re asoning
. AN AL YSI S Whe re , a s h e re , th e B I A a do pts the I J’s r e a so nin g , w e re vie w the I J’s d e c isi on dir e c tly to de te rm ine wh e the r the de c isi on of the B I A sho uld be up he ld o n a pp e a l. Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2006). We revie w an I J ’s deter m i n at i o n reg ardingchang ed countr y conditions for substantial evide nce. Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 530- 31 (6th Cir. 2006). Bor bodoeva a

rg ues that extraordinar

y circ umstances e x cus e her failure to file an a sy lum application within one y ear . See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (5) ( listi ng extraordinary circ umstances that
e xcu se un tim e ly

fi lin g of a n a sylum

a pp lic a tio n) . Sh e argue s th a t sh e fai led to fi le in a tim e ly fashion bec ause of

depre ssion and ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel from a para legal
. We are jurisdictionally

barr ed fr om consideringthis claim. Congre ss has jurisdictionally barr ed us fr om enter taining a ppeals fr om the Attorney Gene ral’s de termination of whe ther a n asylum applicati on ha s b e e n f

ile d w ith in t

he tim e lim it. 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (a )( 2) (B ) & (a )( 3) . B or bo do e va a tte mpt s to
c ir c umv e nt t

his jur isd ic tio na l lim itatio n b y a rguin g that th e REA LI D A c t r e e sta bli sh e s o ur

a pp e llate jurisdiction to review c onstitut ional claims and que s t i o n s o f law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( D). Howeve r, we have squa

rely reje cted this argument beca use whe ther c ircumstance s excuse the
un tim e lin e ss o f a

n a sylum a

pp lic a tio n g e ne ra lly pr e se nts a qu e sti on of fa c t, no t a c on sti tut ion a l c la im
o r a qu e s ti o n o f

law. A l muhtaseb v. G onzales , 4 53 F .3 d 7 43 , 7 47 -4 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) ; se e als o Shkulaku-Purballori v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 499, 502 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (holding that issue of whethe r- 4 -

extraordinary

circ umstances e x cuse untim ely filing of asylum application is jurisdictionally barr ed under Almuhtaseb ); Am ir , 467 F.3d at 924 (same)
. B o r b o d o e v a a r g u e s t h a tt h e IJ e r

r e d b y f a i l i n g t o m a k e a

f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g h e r

c r e d i b i l i t y. Whil e she ma

y be entitled to a presumption of cre dibilit y on appea l, she is not entitled to relief on this ground be cause the I J denie d h er petition based on chang ed countr y conditions, a g round independe nt of her c redibility
. Substantial evidence supports the I J ’s findi ng that country conditions in Ky

rg y zst an have chang ed such that there is no clea r proba bility that Bor bodoeva w ill be persec uted if she r eturns. An alien see king w ithholding of re moval under § 241( b )( 3 ) of the I NA bea rs the burde n to show that her life or fr eedom would be threatened in the f uture in the c ountry

of re moval beca

use of, inter alia, her political opinion or member ship in a particula r social g roup. 8 C.F. R. § 1208.16(b) . I f the a lien is determine d to have suff ere d past perse cution based on a protec ted g round, she is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future p er s ec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)( i). Howe ver, the presumption may be rebutted if the I J finds by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e that ther e has be en a funda mental chang e in circ umstances such that the alien’s life or fr eedom would not be thr eate ned
on acc ount of a prote cted g round. 8 C.F. R
. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i)( A). To qualify for withholding of
remova l under CAT, the a lien must show that it i s more likely than not that she would be tortur ed if r e mo v e d to th e p r o p o s e d c o u n tr y o f r e mo v a l. 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 ( c ) ( 2 )
. We n e e d n o t a n a ly ze chang ed countr

y conditi o ns in the asy lum context beca use B orbodoeva ’s asylum application was

u n t i m e l y. Pr e sid e nt Askar

Aka y ev, lea der o f t he gov ernm ent th at a rres ted andbeat Borb od oe va be c a us e of her political activities, was forc ed out of office and fle d the country in 2005. The newg overnme nt- 5 -

was he aded by

Kurmanbe k Ba

kiy ev, who ha d led the prote sts ag ainst Akay ev. F elix Kulov, the leade r of B orbodoeva ’s Ar- Na my s Party , was re lease d from prison, cle are d of all cha rg es by the Ky rg y zsta n Su pr e me Court , a

pp oin te d h e a d o f t

he c ountr y ’s se c ur ity fo rc e s, a nd la te r b e c a me pr ime minist er and important political a lly to Pre sident Ba kiy ev. Bor

bodoeva relies on the 2005 Country Reports of Human Rig hts Condit ions from the United States De partment of State for the a ssertion that repor ters ar e routinely

hara ssed. Aside fr om being old, out of date rep o rt s wr i t t en duringthe
ear ly stag es of the r eg ime chang e, these repor ts also state that Ky

rgy z s t an ’s “human r ights re cord improved consider ably ” following the re signation of Akay ev. Bor bodoeva argues that the I J err ed by rely ing upon In Re S- V- , 22 I
. & N . Dec . 1306 (2000), in denying he r re lief under CAT. The I J stated “A rticle 3 of the Torture Convention does not ext end protec tion to persons who fea r entities the g overnme nt is unable to control” a nd cited to In Re S- V-
. We h a ve re c og nize d th a t In Re S- V- “dire ctly conflicts w i t h C o n g ress’s intent to include w illful blindness in the definition of acquie scenc e.” Am ir , 467 F.3d at 927. Whil e the I J err ed by citing a n authority t h at i s no longe r g ood law, this err or wa s harmless bec ause it did not aff ect the c hang ed country conditions a

naly sis, the g round upon which the I J ultimately relied in de ny ing B orbodoeva
re lie f. Th e I J cor

re c tly a pp lie d th e le g a l sta

nd a rd fo r t

he c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion a na ly sis a nd

did not rely on In Re S- V- for a

ny rele vant proposition of law. CO NC LU SION The pe tition for reviewis DENI ED.