FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 8, 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. 07- 11496 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 632- 379 A L V A R O E M I L I O C U B I D E S , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 8, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Cubides does not raise a ny challeng e in his brief to the denial of CAT re lief, and 1 there forea

ba ndon e d th eissue . Se eSepulve da v. U. S. Att’ y

Gen. , 4 01 F .3 d 1 22 6, 12 28 n. 2 ( 11 th Cir. 2005). 2 A l va r o E m i l i o C ubi de s , thr ough c ouns e l , s e e ks r e vi e w of the B oa r d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ s ( “ B IA ”) deci si on af fi rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) order di sm i ss i ng C ub i des’ s app l i ca t i on s f or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntor Pu n i s h me n t( “ CA T” ) , I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 16 (c ). 1 C u b id e s c o n te n d s th a t h is te s tim o n ye s tab lis h e dth a t h e is e n title dto a s y lu m . T h e g o v ern m en t arg u es th at w e d o n o t h av e ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J a n dB IA ’s f i ndi ngs tha tC ubi de s f

i l e d hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on unt i m e l ya nd no c ha nge d or e xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s e xc us e the unt i m e l yf i l i ng. W e r e vi e w 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 c a n appl yf ora s y l um i f

he

“ dem on stra t es by cl ear and 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 ) . H ow e ve r , “ [ a ] n appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um of a n a l i e n m a ybe c ons i de r e d . . . i f the a l i e n de m ons tr a t e s t o the s a t i s f a c t i on of the A tto rn e yG e n e r a l e ith e rth e e x is te n c e o f c h a n g e dc ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h m a te r ia lly3

a f f e c tthe appl i c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o th e d e l a yi n f

i l i n g a n ap p l i c a t i o n wi th i n th e p e r i o ds p e c i f i e d. . . . ” I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e B I A ’s au th o r ityto c ons i de ra n unt i m e l ya s y l um appl i c a t i on i n c i r c um s t a nc e s w he r e the appl i c a nt m e e t s one of

the e xc e pt i ons t o the one - y e a rde a dl i ne , “ no c ourts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a nyde t e rm i na t i on of the A tt orne yG e ne r a l unde r[ s e c t i on 1158( a ) ( 2) ] . ” M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng I N A § 208( a ) ( 3) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) ) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . W e ha ve he l d tha t§ 1158( a ) ( 3) di ve s t s ourj ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons th atan asyl u m ap p l i can tfi l ed an u n t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n an dfai l ed t o est ab l i sh c ha nge d ore xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s t o e xc us e hi s unt i m e l yf i l i ng. D e l ga do v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 48 7 F . 3d 85 5, 86 0 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t i ng M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at 1287) . W e ha ve a l s o he l d tha tthe j ur i s di c t i ona l pr ovi s i ons i n the R E A L I D A c tof 2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231, 310 ( 2005) , di d nota l t e rourj ur i s di c t i on o v e rth is m a tte r . D e lg a d o , 4 8 7 F .3 da t 8 6 0 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , th e B I A d e te rm in e d th a t C u b id e s ’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e ly a n d th a t h e h a d f

a ile d to e s tab lis h c h a n g e do re x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s to e xc us e hi s unt i m e l i ne s s . T he r e f or e , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rw he the rthe B I A e rr e d in th is r e g a r d .4

C ub i des argues thatthe t ot al i ty of the death threa t s by the R evol ut i on ary A rm e d F or c e s of

C ol om bi a( “ F A R C ” ) s how s tha the ha s aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, e nt i t l i ng hi m t o w i thhol di ng of rem o v al . C u b i d es arg u es th ath i s case i s d i st i n g u i sh ab l e fro m S ep u l v ed a, b ecau se S epul veda w as threa t ened by the N at i on al L i bera t i on A rm y ( “ E L N ”) , a l es se r t errori stgrou p than the F A R C , and she re ce i ved o nl y three t el epho ne ca l l s over a s h o rt p e r io d o f

tim e , w h ile C u b id e s ’s s itu a tio n w a s o b je c tiv e lya n ds u b

je c tiv e ly m o r e s e v e r e . W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl ytha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the e x t e n tth a tth e BI A e x p r e s s l ya d o p t s th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . ” Ro d r i g u e z M o r a l e s v . U . S. A tt ’ yG e n. , 488 F . 3d 884, 890 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n thi s c a s e , the B I A is s u e d its o w n d e c is io n . T o th e e x t e n tth a tth e B I A’ s d e c i s i o n wa s b a s e do n al e g a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n , we re vi ew de no vo . D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he B IA ’ s f

ac tual det erm i nat i on s are re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e “ m us ta f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w ho l e. ” S anchez J i m enez v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 49 2 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 30 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). T he subst ant i al evi dence t es ti s “ hi gh l y def er ent i al ” and do es no tal l ow “ re w e i gh[ i ng] the e vi de nc e f r om s c r a t c h. ” S i l vav. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229,5

1 2 3 6 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o t at i o n an dci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ T o rev erse th e [B IA ’ s] f a c t f in d in g s , w e m u s t f

in d th a t th e r e c o r dn o t o n lys u p p o rts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e ls it.” M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ( c o n s id e r in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im ) . I n aw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l c l a i m , a n a l i e n s ha l l notbe r e m ove d t o a c ountryi f

hi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . Id. ; se e a ls o I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) . T h e a lie n m u s t s h o w th a t it is

“ m ore l i kel y than n otthat[he] w i l l be pers ec ut ed or t ortured up on bei ng re turned t o [ hi s ] c ountry . ” S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1232. T hi s s t a nda r d i s m or e s tr i nge nt tha n the “ w e l l - f

ounde d f e a r ” s t a nda r d f

ora s y l um . I d. T he appl i c a ntm us ts how tha thi s f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i s s ubj e c t i ve l yge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l yr e a s onabl e . I d. a t 1 2 3 1 ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( a s y lu m c o n te x t) . T h e ap p lic a n t c a n m e e t h is b u r d e n b ys h o w in g e ith e r( 1 ) “p a s t p e r s e c u tio n in hi s c ountryba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound, ” i n w hi c h c a s e ar e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on i s creat ed th ath i s l i fe o r freed o m w o u l db e th reat en ed i f h e retu rn ed t o h er co u n try; or (2) “ a f

uture threa tt o h i s l i fe or fr ee do m on a prot ec t ed grou nd i n h i s c ou ntry . ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287. A n appl i c a nt ’ s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony“ m a ybe s uf f i c i e nt t o s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof w i thoutc orr obor a t i on. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287 ( q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ) .6

W h ile th e I N A d o e s n o t d e f in e p e r s e c u tio n , w e h a v e h e ldth a t p e r s e c u tio n is a n “ e xtr e m e ” c onc e pt , m e r e ha r a s s m e nti s notpe r s e c ut i on, a nd tha tpe r s e c ut i on re qu i re s “ m ore than a few i sol at ed i nci dent s of verbal hara ss m entor i nt i m i dat i on . ” S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 . W e a r e s a t i s f

i e d tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on thatC ub i des i s notent i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . C ub i des has no tes t abl i shed th a t h e s u f

f e r e d f r o m p a s t p e r s e c u tio n in C o lo m b iaa s th e th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a lls he r e c e i ve d doe s notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on. C ubi de s a l s o ha s not es t abl i shed thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthathe w ou l d b e per se cut ed i n the future if f o r c e d to r e tu rn to C o lo m b ia . N o t o n lyd idth r e a ts to C u b id e s n e v e re s c a la te beyond t el epho ne ca l l s, bu tC ub i des a ctual l y l ef tC ol om bi a a ft erbei ng threa t ened on tw o o cc as i on s, bo th t i m es re turni ng short l y there af t er , w here he re ce i ved m ore threa t eni ng ca l l s, bu tno thi ng m ore. A cc ordi ng l y, w e di sm i ss the pet i t i on i n p art a n d d e n yth e p e titio n in p a rt. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.