FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 10661 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 96- 275- 085 & A 96- 275- 086 R A U L C L A U D I O M O R A N , A N A L I A T E L M A T A R I C C O D E M O R A N , R O C I O D E B O R A M O R A N , G I M E N A M A R I E L M O R A N , P e titio n e r s , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 13, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R aul C l audi o M or a n, pr oc e e di ng p ro se , p e titio n s th is C o u rt, a lo n g w ith h is w i fe A nal i a T el m a T ar i cc o d e M oran, and tw o d augh t er s, for r evi ew of a f i nal or de rof the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) ’ s de ni a l of

a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 11 58 , 12 31 , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed 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 ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w of th e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l, w e c o n clu d e th at w e lac kju risd icti o n to re v iew M o ra n ’s a s y l um a nd C A T c l a i m s , a nd M or a n a nd hi s f a m i l ya r e note nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is m is s M o r a n ’s p e titio n in p a rt a n d d e n yit in p a rt. I. W e l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew M o ran ’ s asyl u m an d C A T cl ai m s b ecau se M o ran fai l ed t o ex h au sth i s ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es w i th resp ectt o b o th o f th ese c la im s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . M or a n e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n J une 2001 af t erfl ee i ng fr om A rgent i na. H i s w i fe and d augh t er s arr i ved severa l m on ths l at er i n O ct ob er20 01 . M oran di d n otappl y f or as yl um un t i l Janu ary 200 3. M oran s ta te d in h is ap p lic a tio n th a t h e a n d h is f a m ilyw e r e s u b

je c te d to r o b b e r ie s , d e a th thr e a t s a nd othe ra c t s of vi ol e nc e i n r e t a l i a t i on f orhi s w ork a s a n or ga ni z e ra nd ac t i ve m em ber of a60 0-m em ber tra de un i on of t axi dri vers . H e argues thathe has es t abl i shed a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future per se cut i on because he has beenEven if Mora n had challeng ed the IJ ’s findingreg ardingthe timeliness of his asylum 1 application, wehave no jurisdiction to review dec isions reg ardingwhether a petitioner met the one-year filing de adline or proved extraordinar y circumstances ex cusinguntimely filing. See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 3 id e n tif ie d b y u n io n o p p o s itio n a n d p o lic e a s an a c tiv is t, a n d th r e a te n e d m u ltip le tim e s . H e s ta te s th a t o th e r s h a v e b e e n m u r d e r e d a f te rr e c e iv in g s im ila rth r e a ts . In order t o b e e l i gi bl e f

or as yl um , on e m ustappl y f or re l i ef w i thi n o ne ye ar a f te rth e d a te o f

a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s , u n le s s th e r e a r e s p e c ia l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) . T he I Jf ound M or a n’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on unt i m e l ya nd det erm i ned there w er e no extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s thatw ou l d w arrantan e xc e pt i on t o the one - y e a rt i m e ba r . A l t e rna t i ve l y , the I Ja na l y z e d the m e r i t s of M o ran ’ s asyl u m cl ai m an d d et erm i n ed th ath e fai l ed t o d em o n strat e p ast pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed ca t egory. B ec ause M oran fai l ed t o m ee thi s a sy l um bu rden, the IJrul ed thatM oran a ls o f a ile d to m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n d C A T r e lie f . M o r a n d id n o t c h a lle n g e th e I J ’s d e te rm in a tio n r e g a r d in g th e tim e lin e s s o f h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n o rth e I J ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t h e w a s n o t e n title d to C A T r e lie f . B ecau se M o ran d i d n o tad d ress th ese cl ai m s b efo re th e B IA , h e fai l ed t o ex h au st hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s w i th r e s pe c tt o the s e c l a i m s a nd w e ha ve no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e m, e v e n i f th e BI A a d d r e s s e d th e m s u a s p o n te . See

1 A m ay a-A r tunduaga v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 463 F . 3d 1247, 1250- 51 ( 11th C i r . 2006)4

( pe rc ur i a m ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e di s m i s s M or a n’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w t o the e xt e nthe seek s rev i ew o f h i s asyl u m an d C A T cl ai m s. II . B e c aus e M or a n f

a i l e d t o e xhaus thi s a s y l um a nd C A T c l a i m s , the onl yi s s ue p ro p er ly b ef

o re u s is w h eth erM o ra n is en ti tl ed to w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al. “ W e r e vi e w onl y the [ B I A ] ’ s de c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha ti te xpr e s s l ya dopt s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” A l N

a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). In M or a n’ s c a s e , the B I A i s s ue d i t s ow n opi ni on w i thouta dopt i ng a nyport i on of the I J ’s o p in io n . T he B I A a f

f i rm e d the I J ’ s c onc l us i on tha tM or a n di d notm e e thi s bur de n of proo f f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der 8 U . S . C § 1 23 1(b)(3). T he B IA st at ed that M o r a n h a d e x p e r ie n c e d “p a s t ab u s e a n d h a s d e s c r ib e d f e a r s o f f u tu r e h a rm d u e to h is in v o lv e m e n t in atr a d e u n io n f o rta x i d r iv e r s in th e c ityo f R o s a r io ,” A r g e n tin a . T he B IA expl ai ned thatM oran’ s “ m em bers hi p i n a tra de un i on w ou l d n otqu al i fy a s m e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p u n d e rth e A c t in a s m u c h a s it w a s w ith in h is p o w e rto c h a n g e jo b s .” T h e B I A f u rth e rf o u n d th a t M o r a n f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e o p p o s itio n to th e u n io n ta r g e te d h im “o n a c c o u n t o f h is po l i t i ca l op i ni on , as op po se d t o h i s i nt er fe re nce w i th thei r e cono m i c i nt er es t s. ” T he B IA al so af

fi rm ed the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM oran coul d h ave a vo i ded m i s tr e a tm e ntby r e l oc a t i ng w i thi n A r ge nt i na , apoi ntw hi c h M or a n ha s not5

c o n te s te d .

“ T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d upon al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, [ o u r ] r e v ie w is de no vo . ” D -Muhum e d v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) . O n the othe rha nd, “ a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny r e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t orw oul d be c om pe l l e d t o c onc l ude t o the contrary . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(B). T o q ual i fyfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der th e I N A , o n e m u s t s h o w th a t if h e r e tu rn s to h is c o u n try , h is lif e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof hi s r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . T he appl i c a nt m us tde m ons tr a t e tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha tnottha the w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d or to rtu r e d u p o n r e tu rn to h is c o u n try . Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287. T he appl i c a nt m ustal so dem on stra t e thatthe pers ec ut i on he fe ar s i s, “ atl ea sti n p art , m ot i vat ed by a prot ec t ed grou nd . ” T an v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 44 6 F . 3d 13 69 , 13 75 (11th C i r. 2006) . M or a n a s s e rt s tha tthe uni on oppos i t i on i n R os a r i o pe r s e c ut e d hi m i n the pastand w i l l t ar gethi m up on hi s r eturn b ec ause of hi s m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar soci al grou p, hi s e xp re ss po l i t i ca l op i ni on , and h i s i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on base d on hi s l e a de r s hi p r ol e i n the t a xi dr i ve r s ’ tr a de uni on. T he B IA has def

i ned “ pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar so ci al g ro u p ” as “ p ersecu t i o n th ati s d i rect ed t o w ard an i n d i v i d u al w h o i s a m e m b e ro f

ag r o u p o f

p e r s o n s a ll o f

w h o m s h a r e ac o m m o n , im m u tab le6

char ac t er i st i c . . . thatei ther i s bey on d the po w erof an i nd i vi du al t o chang e or that i s s o f unda m e nt a l t o hi s i de nt i ty orc ons c i e nc e tha ti toughtnotbe r e qui r e d t o be changed. ” M

a tte ro f A c o s ta , 1 9 I . & N . D e c . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 - 3 4 ( B I A 1 9 8 5 ) , overruled on othe rgr ounds byM

at te rof Mogharr abi , 1 9 I . & N . D e c . 4 3 9 ( B I A 1 9 8 7 ) ; se e al s o Cas t i l lo-A r i as v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 446 F . 3d 1190, 1196- 97 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( f in d in g th is d e f

in itio n r e a s o n ab le ) , ce rt. deni ed , __U. S. __ , 1 2 7 S. Ct . 9 7 7 , 1 6 6 L. E d. 2d 70 9 (20 07 ) ( m em . ). In thi s c as e, the B IA concl ud ed thatM oran i s notpart of apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup due t o hi s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the t a xi dr i ve r s ’ tr a de uni on b e c au s e th is c h a r a c te r is tic is n o t im m u tab le a s h e c o u ld c h a n g e jo b s a t a n ytim e . A p p ly in g th e ap p r o p r ia te d e f e r e n c e to th e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e I N A o n th is i ss ue, w e hol d thatthe concl usi on thatM oran’ s m em bers hi p i n a tra de un i on do es n o t c o n s titu te m e m b e r s h ip in as o c ia l g r o u p w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e I N A is r e a s onabl e ––i . e . , the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s ne i the ra rbi tr a ry , c apr i c i ous , nor c le a r lyc o n tr a ry to la w . Se e Cas t i l lo-A r i as , 44 6 F . 3d at11 96 -99 (expl ai ni ng that th e B IA ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f th e IN A th atn o n cri m i n al i n fo rm an t s w h o w o rkag ai n st th e C al i cart el are n o tm em b ers o f a p art i cu l ar so ci al g ro u p d eserv es Che v r on d e f e r e n c e ) ; se e al

so Chevr on U

. S. A . , Inc. v. N

aturalR es . D ef

. C ou nci l , Inc. , 467 U . S . 837, 842- 44, 104 S . C t . 2778, 2781- 82, 81 L . E d. 2d 694 ( 1984) ( e s t abl i s hi ng atw o - s te p p r o c e s s f

o rr e v ie w in g a n a g e n c y ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f as ta tu te it a d m in is te r s ) .Ev en if Mo ra n w eree ligibl efor withho ldingof remov al, his wif

eand da ughterswould 2 not qualify

for withholdingbeca

use the statute doe s not provide for derivative c laims. Delgado v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 487 F.3d 855, 862 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 7 T o qua l i f

y f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l on a c c ountof

pol i t i c a l opi ni on, the appl i c a ntm us te s t abl i s h tha thi s pe r s e c ut or s t a r ge t e d hi m orw i l l t a r ge thi m i n the future because of hi s a ctual or i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on , no tm er el y bec ause of a la c ko f c o o p e r a tio n w ith th e p e r s e c u to r s . Se e Sanc hezv . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 4 3 4 , 4 3 7 -3 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (p er cu ri am ). T h e B IA fo u n d th atth e t ax i o w n ers’ gr oup t a r ge t e d M or a n be c aus e of hi s i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th the i re c onom i c i nt e r e s t s , not because of hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . T hi s f i nd i ng i s c on cl usi ve because the re cord do es n o t c o m p e l ac o n tr a ry r e s u lt. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(B). M o ran h as n o td em o n strat ed th ath e h as b een o r w i l l b e t arg et ed “ b ecau se o f ” h is m e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p o rh is p o litic a l o p in io n . See 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . W hi l e no one di s put e s tha tm e m be r s of the uni on oppos i t i on a tt a c ke d a nd i nt i m i da t e d hi m , M or a n ha s note s t abl i s he d tha the w a s t a r ge t e d on the basi s of aprot ec t ed grou nd . H e has no tful fi l l ed hi s burden o f s ho w i ng that upon hi s r e turn t o A r ge nt i nahi s l i f e orf r e e dom w i l l m or e l i ke l ytha n notbe th r e a te n e d b e c au s e h e is p a rt o f ap r o te c te d g r o u p . C o n s e q u e n tly , M o r a n a n d h is f a m ilya r e n o t e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. 2 D I S M I S S E D I N P A R T ; D E N I E D I N P A R T .8