F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT AU GU ST 14 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1513 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI A N o. A 96- 288- 474 REYNALDO D EL CARPIO-DIAZ, Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 14, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:
Re yna ldo D el Carp io- D ia z, ac iti ze n of P er u and B oli via , pe tit ion s f or
re vie wof the a dopt iona nd a ff

irm an ce by

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s2

(“ BIA ”) of the dec ision of the Im m igration Ju dge (“ IJ”). T he decision deni ed
as y lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, a nd r el ie f unde r 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 , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or Punis hm en t ( “ CA T ”)
. N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e dis m iss the pe tit ion in pa rt a nd de ny it i n p art . W e re vie wthe de ci sio ns o f the I J and the BI A in thi s c as e. S ee A l N aj j ar v. As h cr o ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n g t h at we re v i ew t h e B IA ’s de ci sio n; b ut “ [i ] nsof

ar a s th e [B IA ] a dopt s th e IJ ’ s r ea soni ng, w e w ill r ev ie wthe IJ ’ s de ci sio n a s w el l” ). A n I J’ s f ac tua l de te rm ina tio n “ m

ust be uph el d if

it is supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . ” Ma zari eg os v . U
. S. A tto rn ey G en . , 241 F
. 3d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ). “ Un d ert h i s h i g h l y d ef er en t i al t es t , we af

fi rm th e I J ’s de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d by

r ea sona ble , sub stanti al , a nd p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the
re co rd c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” F or gue v. U
. S. A tto rn ey G en . , 401 F
. 3d 1 282, 1286 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( int er na l qu ota tio n and a lte ratio n om itt ed ). “ T o r ev er se the IJ ’ s f ac t f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the r ec or d no t on ly

sup ports r ev er sa l, but
com pels it.” Me ndoza v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1287 (11th Cir. 20 03 ). W e address D el Car

pio-Diaz’ s asy lum

claim first. T he IJ determ ined that De l Carpio-D iaz’ s asy lum application was untim ely and that extraordinaryDe l Carp io- Di a z e nte re d the Un ite d State s in Ma y 20 01 ; and

he fi le d h is a sylum

a pp lic atio n in 1 2003. 3 ci rcu m st an ces di d n ot ex cu se th e u nt im el y fil in g. The g ov ern m en t as se rts th atwe

1 la ck j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe de te rm ina tio n th at D el Carp io- D ia z w as ine lig ibl e fo r as y lu m . W e re vie w“ que sti ons of

sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n de nov o. ” Br ooks v. A shc ro ft , 283 F
. 3d 1 268, 127 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2)
. A n a sy lum appl ic at ionm

ust be

“ filed within [one] y ear after the date of the alien’ s arrival in the U nited States.” 8 U
. S. C. § 11 58( a) (2 )( B)
. A n un tim el y appl ic at ion“ m ay

be c onsi de re d .
. . if

the alien dem onstrates . . . either the existence of c hanged circum stances which
m aterially

aff ect the applicant’ s eligibil ity for asy lum

or extraordinary ci rcu m st an ces rel at in g t o t he de la y in fil in g a n app li cat io n . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a )( 2) (D ). B ut the de te rm ina tio n of w he the r ana lie n c anappl y f or a sy lum is le ft e xc lu si ve ly to t he Att orne y Gene ral ; s o we d o n ot ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a de ci sio n a

bout w he the r ana lie n su cha s D el Carp io- D ia z co m pli ed w iththe
one -y ear tim e lim it or

e sta bli she d c ir cu m stanc es that w oul d e xc use his unt im el y filing. Chacon-Boter o v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 427 F.3d 954, 956-57 (11th Cir.The jurisdictional pr ovisions of the REALI D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 2 31 0 ( 20 05 ), do no t a ff

e c t th is co nc lus ion

be c a us e , a lth ou g h th e REA LI D A c t pr ov ide s th at w e re ta in jurisdiction over “c onstitut ional claims or questions of l aw raised upon a petition for r eview,” see 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (a )( 2) (D ), the I J’s de te rm inatio n o f t he tim e lin e ss o f a

n a sylum a pp lic atio n is no t a constitutional claim or a re viewable question of law. See Chacon-B otero, 427 F .3d at 957. I f the alien e stablishes past perse cution in his country based on a

protec ted g round, it is presumed 3 that his life or fr eedom would be threatene d upon return to that c ountry unless the g overnme nt shows by a pre pondera

nce of evidenc e that, amongother thing s, (1) the c ountry ’s conditions have c hang ed such that the a lien’s l ife or fre edom would no longe r be threatene d; or (2) it would be r easona ble for the alien to relocate to another part of the country . Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. An alien who ha s not shown past perse cution may be entitled to w ithholding of remova l if he ca n demonstrate a

future threat to his l ife or f

ree dom on a protec ted g round. See 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(b)(2)
. 4 2005 ). T he re fo re , w e dis m iss D el Carp io- D ia z’ s pe tit ionf or r ev ie won h is a sy lum
c l a i m. 2 W e also dism iss Del Carpio-Diaz ’ s CAT claim
. Beca use Del C arpio-Dia z fa ile d to pr es en t this c la im to the BI A , a nd the re fo re f ai le d to e xhaust

his adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, w e la ck j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r thi s c la im
. S ee S undar v. I. N
. S. , 328 F
. 3d 1 320, 132 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) ( ex pla ini ng “ w e la ck j ur isd ic tio n to consider claim s that have not b een ra ised before the BI A” ). W e now addre ss Del Carpio-Diaz ’ s withholdi ng of rem oval claim
. An alien
se ek ing w ith hol din g of

r em ova l m

ust sho wthat hi s li fe or

f re ed om w oul d be threatened because of a protected ground, such as m em bership in a particular social group. See 8 U. S. C. § 123 1(b)(3)(A ). T herefor e, an alien bears the burden of dem onstrating that he m ore-likely -than-not would be persecuted or tortured up on return t o h is co un try of n at io na li ty. Men do za, 3 27 F.3d at 1 28 7. 3De l Ca rp io- Di a z g ave c on fl ic tin ginf or matio n o n whe the r h e wa s d e ta ine d o r a bu se d a s a

re su lt 4 of b e i n g at th e d an c e c l u

b
. In h i s a s yl u m a

p p l i c at i o n , D e l C ar

p i o - D i a z e xp l a i n e d th at he a ndhis boy friend e scape d from the c lub after the police a

rrived a nd that Del Carpio- Diaz later lea rned that other c lub patrons had been detained and abused by the police. B ut, during his asylum hearing , Del Carpio-Dia z testi fied that he was de tained and a bused by the police who r aided the da nce c lub. 5 H er e, D el Carp io- D ia z as se rt s th at he is hom ose xua l. I n hi s a sy lum ap pli catio n, D el Carp io- D ia z co nte nde d th at , in Pe ru , he w as m istre at ed a s ac hil d be ca use of his hom ose xua lity , he w as se xua lly abuse d by

a n a dul t a t hi s C athol ic
m iddle schoo l, and po lice detained and abused persons at a dance club where De l Carp io- D ia z an d hi s bo y fr ie nd h ad be endanc ing
. H e al so a sse rt ed that l at er in his 4 lif e, a s an a dul t i n B oli via , he w as hara sse d f or be ing hom ose xua l, w as f ir ed f ro m his job because of his hom osexuality , and was beat on one occasion by two police of fi ce rs w ho i ndi cate d th at

the y kne wthat D el Carp io- D ia z w as hom ose xua l. T he I J de te rm ine d th at

D el Carp io- D ia z pr es en te d no c or ro bor at ing
ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

his te sti m ony

that he w as m istre at ed

in Pe rua nd B oli via because of his hom osexuality
. In addition , the B IAexplained that the experiences that D el Carp io- D ia z de sc ri be d inhis te sti m ony did not r ise to the le ve l of pe rs ec uti on. O n a

ppe al , D el Carp io- D ia z as se rt s th at he intro duc ed

suf fi ci en t evidence -- includi ng his testim ony and a letter wr itten by

his docto r stating that D el Carp io- D ia z w as be ing tr eate d f or str es s- re la te d di sor de rs r es ult ing f ro mWe note that, in his brief on appe al, Del Car pio-Diaz descr ibes his case as a situation involving 5 “the a bsence of ac tual phy sical har m.” 6 m istre atm en t a t hi s w orkpl ac e -- to showthat he suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n and fe ar ed f uture pe rs ec uti on. A ft er r ev ie w , w e co nc lud e tha t the e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l the c onc lus ion that D el Carp io- D ia z w as e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l. A lth ough

“ [un] co rr obor at ed

but c re dib le te sti m ony

m ay be suf fi ci en t t o su sta in the bur de n of p ro o f f o r d emo n s t ra t i n g el i g i b i l i t y fo r a s ylu m [, ] . . . [ t ]h e w ea k eran ap p l i ca n t ’s testim ony , . . . the gre ater the nee d for corr oborative evidence.” Y ang v. U .S
. Attorney Ge n., 418 F.3d 1198 , 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). H ere, De l Carpio-D iaz pr ov id edno ev id en ce t o c orro bo rat e h is sp eci fic cla im s o f al le ge d m is tre at m en t. And even assum ing th at the incidents that Del Car pio-Diaz descr ibed didoccur, the r ec or d do es not

c om pe l the c onc lus ionthat D el Carp io- D ia z m or e- lik el y -thannot would b e persec uted or tortured if returned to Per u or Bolivia. See

5 Se pul ve da , 401 F
. 3d a t 12 31 ( ex pla ini ng tha t pe rs ec uti on i s “ ane xtr em e co nc ep t
re qui ri ng m or e than af

ewiso la te d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im ida tio n”
an d th at “ m er e hara ssm en t do es not a m ount to pe rs ec uti on” ). T he re fo re , w e de ny D e l C a r p i o - D i a z ’s p e t i t i o n o n h i s w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l c l a i m. PETITION DISMIS SED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.