FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16027 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 441- 162 A S A D H U S S A I N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A p r i l30, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A sa d H ussa i n, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f P aki st an, arri ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es on S e pt e m be r27, 2000 on a non- i m m i gr a ntvi s a , w hi c h l a t e rc ha nge d t o a s tude ntMQM is an org anization for people who migrated to Pakistan from India. 1 2 vi s a . H us s a i n f

a i l e d t o m a i nt a i n a f

ul l c our s e of

s tudy a nd t o m a i nt a i n a pa s s i ng g r a d e p o in t a v e r a g e , a n d th e I N S is s u e d a n o tic e to ap p e a r , c h a r g in g h im w ith re m ov abi l i ty und erIN A § 2 37 (a )( 1)(C )( i ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 7(a) (1)( C )( i ). O n A ugus t10, 2003, H us s a i n f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T orture ( “ C A T ”) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 11 58 , 12 31 ; 8 C . F . R . 20 8. 16 (c ), al l egi ng thathe had b e e n p e r s e c u te d in P a k is ta n o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l a c tiv itie s a n d h is i nv ol vem entw i th the A l l P aki st an M uh aj i r S tud entO rgani za t i on (“ A P M S O ”) , w hi c h w a s the s tude ntgr oup a f f i l i a t e d w i th the M utt a hi da Q ua m i M ove m e nt (“ M Q M ”) . A cc ordi ng t o H ussa i n, he w as att ac ked and beat en by m em bers of an

1 oppos i ng gr oup a s he a tt e m pt e d t o r e c rui ta nothe rs tude nti nt o the A P M S O . I n the ap p lic a tio n , h e in d ic a te d th a t h e h a d n o t f ile d th e ap p lic a tio n w ith in o n e y e a ro f h is a rr iv a l b e c a u s e h e w a s n o t a w a r e o f th e d e a d lin e . A tthe re m ov al hear i ng , H ussa i n con ce ded h i s r em ov abi l i ty a nd adm i tt ed thatthe as yl um appl i ca t i on w as un t i m el y, bu tas se rt ed thatthere w er e extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s t o excuse the l at e app l i ca t i on . H ussa i n exp l ai ned that h is g r a n d m o th e rh a d d ie d a n d h e h a d b e e n in m o u rn in g , w h ic h le f t h im u n ab le to fi l e h i s ap p l i cat i o n . H e fi rstst at ed th ath i s g ran d m o th er p assed aw ay i n A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , b u t la te rte s tif

ie dit h a d b e e n o n S e p te m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e d e a th c e r tif ic a te3

s u b m itte d in d ic a te d th a t H u s s a in ’s g r a n d m o th e rd ie d o n S e p te m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 1 . H ussa i n further t es t i fi ed thathe w ai t ed t o app l y f or as yl um because he had been a tt e ndi ng c ol l e ge . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) c onc l ude d tha tthe r e w e r e no e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s t o e xc us e the unt i m e l y pe t i t i on, not i ng the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s c onc e rni ng the da t e the gr a ndm othe rha d di e d a nd the r e a s ons gi ven for the l at e f

i l i ng . N everthel es s, the IJfoun d thateven i f there w er e e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s , the de l a y w a s unr e a s onabl e a nd pr e t e rm i tt e d the a s y lu m c la im a s u n tim e ly . T he I J a l s o de ni e d r e l i e f f r om r e m ova l , f

i ndi ng tha tthe t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng th e a ll eg ed p er se cu ti o n w as v ag u e a n d n o n -s p ec ific. T h e I J q u es ti o n ed H u ss ain ’s cr edi bi l i ty, bu tdi d n otm ake a n exp l i ci tadvers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on . T he IJ no t ed thatthere w as no evi dence t o corrobo ra t e the att ac k o r hospi t al i za t i on , that H ussa i n cou l d n oti dent i fyhi s a tt ac kers , and there w as no evi dence the att ac k w as conn ec t ed t o a prot ec t ed grou nd . T he IJal so foun d thatthere w as no evi dence of a f u tu r e th r e a t. H us s a i n m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the unt i m e l y a s y l um c l a i m a nd appe a l e d t o the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) . T he B I A di s m i s s e d the appeal , agre ei ng w i th the IJthatthe appl i ca t i on w as un t i m el y a nd thatthere w er e no extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s t o excuse the del ay , as the am ou ntof t i m e w as4

unr e a s onabl e . T he B I A f ur the rc onc l ude d tha tthe r e w a s no pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount o f a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d . Hu s s a i n n o w p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. I n hi s pe t i t i on, H us s a i n c ha l l e nge s the t i m e l i ne s s de t e rm i na t i on, a nd he c ont e nds tha thi s c l a i m s s houl d be r e m a nde d t o the B I A due t o i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. A . T i m el i n ess H u ssai n arg u es th ath e w as u n ab l e t o p ro p erl y ad d ress th e i ssu e o f t i m el i n ess due t o i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . H e di s a gr e e s w i th the I J ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the fa ct s of hi s c as e, and con t ends thatthe com bi nat i on of event s r i se s t o the l evel of extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s a nd thatthe dang erhe fa ce s i n P aki st an const i tut es c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s . W e r e vi e w m a tt e r s of

s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. B r ooks v. A s hc r of t , 283 F . 3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . A n a l i e n m a y s e e k a s y l um i f he

“ dem on stra t es by cl ea r a nd conv i nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i ca t i on has bee n fi l ed wi th i n 1 y e a ra f

t e rth e d a t e o f

th e a l i e n ’ s a rr i v a l i n th e Un i t e dS t a t e s . ” I NA § 208( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . T he one - y e a rpe r i od be gi ns e i the ron the d a te o f th e a lie n ’s la s t a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s o rA p r il 1 , 1 9 9 7 , w h ic h e v e ris l at er . 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 4(a) (2)( i i ). H ussa i n con ce des thathi s app l i ca t i on w as u n t i m el y.5

An u n t i m e l y ap p l i c a t i o n m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d , h o we v e r , i f th e a l i e n s h o ws e x tr a o r d i n a ry c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o rth e d e l a y i n f

i l i n g a t i m e l y ap p l i c a t i o n . I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . T h is c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) d iv e s ts it o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w a B I A ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t f a ile d to f ile a tim e ly appl i ca t i on or t o est abl i sh the extra ordi narycond i t i on s thatw ou l d excuse an unt i m e l y appl i c a t i on. C ha c on- B ot e r a v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 956- 57 (11th C i r. 20 05 ); M endo zav. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 2003) . H e r e , the I J a nd the B I A de t e rm i ne d tha tthe appl i c a t i on w a s unt i m e l y a nd th a tth e r e we r e n o e x tr a o r d i n a ry c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o e x c u s e th e l a t e ap p l i c a t i o n s . As s uc h, w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a s y l um pe t i t i on. H u s s a in n o w a r g u e s th a t in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l p r e

ju d ic e d h is c l a i m s of e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s , buthe ha s of f e r e d nothi ng t o s how tha tthe out c om e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntbutf

orc ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on. H e doe s not e xpl a i n w ha te vi de nc e he w oul d ha ve s ubm i tt e d t o m e e thi s bur de n. S e e D a ka ne v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1274 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( di s c us s i ng ne e d t o s how pr e j udi c e ) ; s e e a l s o M a tt e rof L oz a da , 19 I & N D e c . 637 ( B I A 1988) ( di s c us s i ng r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rin e f f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c la im ) . N o tab ly , H u s s a in c o u ld h a v e m o v e d th e B I A f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o rto r e o p e n in o r d e rto r a is e h is in e f f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c la im s , b u t h e d id n o t d o s o .The new documents a re pa rt of the Appendix filed with the appeal. Be causethey were not 2 pa rt of thea dminis trativ ere c ord, thedo cuments a reno t prop erly

be fo rethi s c ourt . 8 U. S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) . 6 M o r e o v e r , a lth o u g h H u s s a in n o w a s s e r ts th a t th e r e a r e c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s to e x c u s e h i s u n t i m e l y ap p l i c a t i o n , h e d i d n o tr a i s e th i s i s s u e b e f o r e th e I J o rth e B I A, a nd thus ha s note xha us t e d i t . I N A § 242( d) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . T he e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e m e n ti s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ; th e r e f o r e , we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a cl ai m no tpres ent ed t o the B IA . A l i m v. G on za l es , 44 6 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 53 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); F ernand ez -B ernal v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 25 7 F . 3d 13 04 , 13 17 n. 13 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s th i s p a r to f th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. B . R e m a nd H us s a i n a s s e r t s tha the s uf f e r e d pr e j udi c e due t o i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l , a nd he r e que s t s a r e m a nd be c a us e he w a s unabl e t o pr e s e ntthi s i s s ue b e f o r e th e I J a n d th e B I A . H e s e e k s to s u b m it a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c l a i m s , a nd he not e s tha tc ouns e l ha s s i nc e be e n di s ba rr e d. 2 T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha tthi s c our tl a c ks j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the i n effecti v e-assi st an ce-o f-co u n sel cl ai m s b ecau se H u ssai n d i d n o tex h au st a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , a nd the c our ts houl d notc ons i de rne w e vi de nc e not pr e s e nt e d t o the I J orB I A . I ta l s o a s s e r t s tha tH us s a i n c a nnotm e e tthe s t a nda r d f or i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m s s e tf

o r th i n M a tt e ro f

L o z a d a , 1 9 I &NThe B IA has re quired that, when filing a motion to reopen based on a claim of inef

fec tive 3 assistanceof counse l, the alien must: (1) submi t an affidavit attesti ng to the relevant facts; (2) infor m former counsel of thealleg ations and allow an opportunity to respond; and (3) if asser ting that the prior counse l’s handlingof the c ase violate d ethical or leg al re sponsibili ties, s t ate whether a complaint has been filed with the appropriate discipli nary authorities, and, if not, why not. Matter of L ozada, 19 I

& NDec . 637, 639 (1988). 7 D e c . 637 ( B I A 1988) . H us s a i n r e pl i e s tha the c oul d notha ve r a i s e d the 3 i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance cl ai m ea rl i erbecause i ti s bas ed on coun se l ’ s per form ance b ef o re th e B IA as w ell as b ef o re th e I J. H e c o n ten d s th at, i n li g h t o f c o u n se l’ s d is b a rm e n t, h e s h o u ld b e e x c u s e d f r o m th e s te p s s e t o u t in M a tte ro f L o z a d o . A s di sc usse d abo ve, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cl ai m s thathave no tbeen e x h a u s te d . A lim , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 ; F e rn a n d e z - B e rn a l, 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 n .1 3 . B e c a u s e Hu s s a i n d i d n o tr a i s e h i s i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m b e f o r e th e B I A, we a r e w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n . H us s a i n a s s e r t s tha the c oul d notr a i s e the c l a i m be f or e the B I A be c a us e he w as st i l l re pres ent ed by coun se l i n thatproceedi ng . A s di sc usse d abo ve, ho w ever , H us s a i n di d notm ove the B I A t o r e c ons i de rorr e ope n hi s pr oc e e di ngs t o r a i s e the cl ai m . H e now po i nt s t o evi dence thathi s c ou nsel has bee n d i sbarre d as de m ons tr a t i ve of

the pr e j udi c e he s uf

f e r e d. T hi s e vi de nc e w a s notpr e s e nt e d t o theMoreover, the e v i d ence does not demonstrate that counse l’s disbarment wa s cause d by 4 defic ient perf

ormanc e. Rather , counsel wa s disbarre d followinga fe lony conviction. Hu ssain a

rgue s th at, u

nder t he“remand

rule ,”wesh ould re mand thec a seto t

heB IA to 5 consider theineffe ctive-a ssistance-of -counse l claim. See Gonzalez v. Thoma s, 547 U.S. 183, 126 S.Ct . 1613, 1615, 164 L .Ed.2d 358 (2006); I NS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 1 8 , 1 2 3 S.Ct . 353, 154 L .E d. 2d 27 2 ( 20 02 ) ( e xplainingthat “ [a] c ourt of a pp e als is no t g enerally e mpo were d to c on duc t a de novo inquiry into the m atter being reviewed and to reach it s own conclusions based on such an inquiry . . . . Rather, the proper course , except in rare circumstances, is to rema nd to theag ency

for a dditi on al inve sti g atio n o r explanatio n. ” ) ( quotatio n o mitte d) . Wec on c ludethat Hus sain’ s c laims fall within the “ra

re instanc e” when remand is unnece ssary beca use as Hussain admits that he has not met the requirements set forth in M att er o f L o z ada, he would not be entitled to re lief if the matter were remande d to the BIA. 8 B I A , a n d w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rit. A c c o r d in g ly , a s H u s s a in h a s n o t e x h a u s te d th is 4 i s s ue , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on. 5 C . W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al T h e g o v er n m en t ass er ts th at H u ss ain ab an d o n ed an y c h allen g e to th e I J’s d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in g a n d C A T r e lie f b e c a u s e h e f

a ile d to r a is e th e is s u e in h is o p e n i n g b r i e f

. H u s s a i n r e p l i e s th a th e d i d n o tab a n d o n th e w i th h o l d i n g c l a i ms be c a us e he i s s e e ki ng t o ha ve the e nt i r e c a s e r e m a nde d t o the B I A i n l i ghtof the p r e ju d ic e r e s u ltin g f

r o m in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. A s the gove rnm e ntnot e s , H us s a i n doe s nota ddr e s s the de ni a l of w i th h o l d i n g o r C A T rel i ef i n h i s b ri ef. T h erefo re, H u ssai n h as ab an d o n ed th ese is s u e . S e p u lv e d a v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A cco rd i n g l y, w e d en y th e p et i t i o n o n th ese g ro u n d s.9

In concl usi on , for the foregoi ng re as on s, w e D IS M IS S the pet i t i on i n p art a n d D E N Y th e p e titio n in p a r t.