FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 11, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1308 6 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AN o. A 78- 407- 593 SANYDE GEFFRARD, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (July 11, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , D U BIN Aand B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Sany de G ef

fr ar d, pr oc ee din g pr o se , pe tit ion s f or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of Im m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( “ BI A ’ s” ) de ci sio n a ff irm ing , w ith out

opi nio n, the im m igr at ionj udge ’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) de nia l of he r ap pli catio n f

or a sy lum and w ithhol din g2

of rem oval und er the I m

m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A” ), and relief under the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, I nhum an e or De grading Treatm ent or Punishm ent (“ CAT ”). Bec ause Ge ffr ard’ s rem oval proceedings comm enced afte r April 1, 1997, the perm anent rules of the Illegal Im m igr at ionRe fo rm

and I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity

A ct of 199 6, P ub. L . N o. 104-20 8, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (hereinafte r “ IIRI RA” ), apply . See Gonzalez Or opeza v. U .S . Att’ y

Ge n., 321 F.3d 1331 , 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). A. IJ’s Re fusal to A dm it U ntranslated Docu m ents O n a ppe al , G ef

fr ar d f ir st arg ue s th at

the I J e rr ed

by r ef usi ng t o a cc ep t the d e a thc e rt i f

i c a t e o f Ge f f r ar d ’s g r an dmo th e r

i n t o e v i d e n c e , o r , a l t e rn a t i v e l y, granting Geff

rard a continu ance in order to allowthe docum ent to be translated an d auth en tic at ed . A cc or din g to G ef fr ar d, the de ath c er

tif ic at e w as ne ce ssary

in order to corroborate her

testim ony , and the IJ’ s failure to grant a c ontin uance w as a violation of her F ifth Am endm ent due process rights. Ge ffr ard ar gues that her grandm other’ s death certific ate, as w ell as the docum entary evidence regar ding her em ploym ent with the H aitian Bureau of E lection Controls (“ BE C”), “ could [have] ne gate [d ] he r que sti ona

ble te sti m ony , ” an d, the re fo re , the I J’ s r ef usa l t o a dm it it was a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on .3

W e m ay r ev ie waf

ina l or de r of

r em ova l on ly

if the a lie n ha s e xhaust ed

a ll ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai labl e to he r as of r ig ht . See INA § 24 2( d) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( d) (1 ). B ec au se § 12 52( d) (1 ) im pose s aj ur isd ic tio na l r equir em en t, we lack j urisdictio n to review c laim s that wer e not raised before the BIA . S ee Fe rn an de z- Be rn al v. A tt’ y G en . of U nit ed S tate s, 257 F . 3d 1 304, 131 7 n. 13 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ). W e have stated that exhaustion m ay not be required wher e the claim at issue is a consti tutio nal challenge to the INAor a due process cla im that the BIA doe s no t have the auth or ity to ad dr es s. S undar v. IN S, 328 F . 3d 1 320, 132 5 ( 11th Cir. 2003 ). H owever , if

the BIAhas the authority to adjudicate the c laim , then

“ the e xhaust ionr equir em en t a ppl ie s w ithf

ull f or ce . ” I d. ; R as hta

ba di v . IN S, 23 F. 3d 1 562 (9 th C ir . 199 4) ( hol din g th at it la ck ed j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe pe tit ion er ’ s c la im s be ca

use the y w er e al le gatio ns o f pr oc ed ur al e rr or s th at

c oul d ha ve be enco rrec te d b y , bu t wer e n otpre se nt edto , th e BIA). T he BI Aha s j ur isd ic tio n ov er appe al s f ro m f ina l r em ova l or de rs of

the I J, and it “ m ay

reviewquestion s of law , discre tion, and judgm ent and all other issues in appeals from

decisions o f im

m igration judges de novo .” 8 C. F. R. § 10 03. 1( b) (3 ), ( d) (3 )( ii) . A ny f or ei gn- langua ge doc um en t of fe re d by aparty in a rem ov al pro ceed in g m

us t b e acc om

pa ni edby a certi fie d En gl is h t ran sl at io n. 8 C. F. R. § 10 03. 33. T he I J m ay se t and e xte nd the ti m e limits f or the f ili ng o f4

do cu m en ts an d m ay

gra nta m ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e whe re g oo d c au se is sh own . 8 C. F. R. §§ 1 003. 29 & 100 3. 31( c) . A n a lie n m ay f ile am oti on t o r eo pe n w iththe BIAin order to present evidence that wa s unavailable at the tim e of her rem oval proceedings. See IN A § 240(c)( 6), 8 U .S .C. § 1229 a(c) (6); 8 C. F. R. § 100 3.2(c) (1). W e co nc lud e that w e do n ot h av e j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r G ef fr ar d’ s c la im that the IJ err ed by

ref using to accept her additio nal docum entary evidence be ca use she f ai le d to e xhaust

he r adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s w ithr es pe ct to thi s issue. Bec ause the docum ents wer e untranslated at the tim e of the hear ing, they w er e ina dm iss ibl e at

that t im e an d c oul d have be ena dm itt ed int o e vid en ce onl y

if the IJ chose to exercise its discretion and grant Gef frar d a continuance. Se e 8 C. F. R. §§ 1 003. 19, 100 3. 33. Whe the r the I J a buse d it s di sc re tio n inr ef usi ng t o grant a continuance is an issu e that the BIAis authorized to review, and, there fore, G ef fr ar d f ai le d to e xhaust

that c la im

by not r ai sin g it in ei the r he r dir ec t a

ppe al to the BIAor in a m otion to reopen. S ee 8 C. F. R. §§ 10 03.1(c)( 3)(ii), 1003 .2(c )(1). B. Asy lu m an d Wi thho ld in g o f Remova l un der t he I NA Ge ffr ard next argues that the IJ er red by finding th at she failed to m eet her bur de n of pr ovi ng e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum ba se d onaw el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of he r im put ed pol iti ca l op ini on. A cc or din g to G ef fr ar d,5

the atta ck on h er unc le , the m

ur de r of he r gr an dm oth er , and the thr eats co m m uni cate d to he r by

the F anm i L av al as ( “ FL ”) pol iti ca l party , ha d atr aum at ic effe ct on her and rose to the level of persec ution . Additionally , G effr ard ar gues that sh e ha s satis fi ed

the m or e ex ac tin g burd enof pr ovi ng e nti tle m en t t o wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . Whe n th e BI Asum

m ar ily a ff irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n, the IJ ’ s de ci sio n be cam e the f ina l r em ova l or de r subj ec t t o r ev ie w . S ee Me ndoz a v. U. S. Att’ y

Ge n., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing 8 C.F .R. § 3.1(a)( 7), nowfound at 8 C.F. R. § 100 3.1(a) (7)). T he BIA ’ s factual determ ination s are r eviewe d und er “ the high ly defer ential subs tantial evidence te st, ” w hic h r equir es us t o “ vie wthe r ec or d e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the [BIA ] ’ s decision anddrawall rea sonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Ad ef emi v . As h cr o ft , 3 8 6 F. 3 d1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 6 -2 7 (1 1 thCi r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( en b an c) . We

“ m ust a ff irm the BI A ’ s de ci sio n if

it is ‘ supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , and pr obativ e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s awhol e. ’ ” A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). T he A tto rn ey

G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to gr ant a sy lum if an a lie n m ee ts the INA’s def

in it io n o f “ refu ge e.” INA § 2 08 (b )(1 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ). The INA de fi ne s “ re fu ge e” a s f

oll ow s:6 [A ] ny person who is outs ide any country of such pe rs on’ s natio na lity

. . . and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to r et ur n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or he rs el f of the pr ote ct ionof

, that c ountry

be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n ac co unt of r ac e, r el igi on, natio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or pol iti ca l op ini on. IN A§ 10 1( a) (4 2) (A ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng r ef

uge e status . A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84. T o e sta bli sh as y lum e lig ibi lity , the a lie n m

ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce , e sta bli sh (1) past persecution on account of a statutorilylisted factor, or (2) a “ we ll-founded fear ” that the statutorily

listed factor w ill cause such future persecution. 8 C. F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) , ( b) ; A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87. W e conclude that the IJ’ s finding s are supported by subst antial evidence, and a rea sonable factfinder w ouldnot be com pelled to conclud e that G effr ard s a t i s f i e dh e r b ur d e no f

p r o v i n g a s yl u m el i g i b i l i ty. A l th o u g hGe f f r ar d ’s t e s t i mo n y, if c re dib le , m ay

have e nti tle d he r to r el ie f, ar ea sona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d no t have be enc om pe lle d to be lie ve he r te sti m ony be ca use : ( 1) it c onf lic te d w iththe state m en ts that sh e m ad e in h er ini tia l i nte rv ie ww iththe I m m igr at ionand N at ur al iz at ionS er

vic e (“ IN S” ) of

fi ce r; ( 2) she be cam e de fe nsi ve and e va siv e w he n a ske d a

bout he r pol iti ca l a ff

ili at ion ; and ( 3) she gave inc onsi ste nt s tate m en ts7

reg ard in g t he ele ct io ns th atsh e worke d o n a ndth e co m pe ns at io n t ha t s he rece iv ed . Beca use Gef frar d has failed to dem onstrate asy lum eligibilit y , she a lso has failed to m ee t the m or e ex ac tin g st an dard f or de m onstratin g e nti tle m en t t o w ithhol din g of r em ova l. S ee A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 92- 93.

C. With ho ld in g o f Remova l un der CAT Fi na lly , G ef

fr ar d arg ue s th at

the I J e rr ed

by f ind ing that sh e ha d f

ai le d to m ee t he r bur de n of

pr ovi ng e nti tle m en t t o C A T r el ie f. A cc or din g to G ef fr ar d, the beating of her uncle and the m urder of her

grandm other rose to the level of torture, as de fi ne d by

CA T , and, the re fo re , it

is lik el y that sh e too w ill be tor

tur ed if she re tur ns t o H ai ti. G ef

fr ar d arg ue s th at

he r fe ar of tor tur e is s uppo rt ed

by the 200 1 Country Reports on Hum an Rights Practices f or Ha iti (hereinafte r “ Country Re port” ), whic h st at ed

that the F L -c ontro lle d H ai tian go ve rnm en t f re que ntl y co m m it s “ se rio us hu m anrig ht s ab us es .” The I J’ s determ ination that an alien is not entitl ed to withhold ing of rem oval unde r CA T is re vie w ed

und er the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st. S ee A l N aj j ar , 257 F. 3d at 128 3-84. In order to dem onstrate entitlem ent to withhold ing of rem oval unde r CA T , an a lie n m

ust de m onstrate that i t i s m or e lik el y than no t that sh e would be tortured if rem oved to h er c ount ry of origin. 8 C. F. R. § 208 .16(c) (2);8

se e al so A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 13 03. E vid en ce r el ev an t t o ade te rminatio n of w he the r it is m or e lik el y

than no t that an a lie n w ill be tor tur ed in the c ountry

of re m ova l, inc lud es , but

is not li m ite d to , e vid en ce of

: ( 1) pa st t ortur e suf

fe re d by the alien; (2) the possibi lity of relocation within th e re m oval count ry ; (3) hum an ri ght s a buse s inthe r em ova l c ountry ; and ( 4) ove ra ll co ndi tio ns i n th e co untry of rem ov al . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(3 )(i )-(i v) .

[F ] or an a ct to co nst itute “ tortur e” und er CA T , it m ust be : ( 1) an a ct

c au sin g se ve re phy sic al or m en ta l pa in o r suf fe ri ng; ( 2) int en tio na lly

inf lic te d; ( 3) f

or an il lic it or pr osc ri be d purp ose ; ( 4) by or at the ins tig at ionof

or w ith the consent or acquiescence of a publ ic official who has cu sto dy or phy sic al c ontro l of

the vic tim ; and ( 5) not ari si ng fro m

lawf ul san ct io ns . Cad etv. Bu lg er, 3 77 F.3d11 73 , 11 81 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e co nc lud e that the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthi s c as e w oul d no t c om pe l a reasonable fac tfinder to conclude that it is m ore likely than not th at G effr ard w oul d be tor

tur ed if r em ove d to H ai ti. A cc or din gly , w e de ny G ef fr ar d’ s pe tit ion fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.