FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 9, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1463 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AN o. A 78- 275- 494 HA ROL D B EC ERRA- ROJA S, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 9, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The g overnme nt argues that B ece rra -Rojas has aba ndoned any

challeng e to the denia l 1 of his motion for rec onsideration by not expressly

raisingsuch a c halleng e in his appellate brief. This positi on is understanda ble. See Sepulveda

v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding , in counseled c ase, that “[w] hen appe llant fails to offer argument on an iss ue , th at is su e is a

ba nd on e d” ). Ho we ve r, be c a us e B e c e rr a -R oja s is un c ouns e le d w e lib e ra lly construe his brie f as c halleng ing the BIA’s denia l of his motion for rec onsideration. See H aines v. Ker ner, 404 U .S. 519, 520, 92 S. C t. 594, 595-96 (1972). 2 Harold Becer

ra-R oja s, a native and citizen of Per u, appeals pro se the Boar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ s ( “ BI A ’ s” ) af fi rm an ce w ith out

opi nio n of

an I m m igr at ion Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) de ci sio n de ny ing his appl ic at ionf or a sy lum , w ithhol din g of re m ova l, and r el ie f unde r the Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e (“ CA T ”) . B ec au se Bece rra- Roj as did notfile a petition for r eview w ithin 30-day s of the BIA ’ s denial of his appeal, w e lack j urisdictio n to review the I J’ s decision o r the BI A’ s initial af fi rm an ce of

thi s de ci sio n. A lth oughw e lib er al ly c onstru e Be ce rr a- Ro

j as ’ s pr o se br ie f as c ont en din g th at

the BI Aabuse d it s di sc re tio n by de ny ing his m oti on f

or reconsideration, w e find that the m otion did no t toll the runn ing of the review pe ri od. A cc or din gly , the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wis DISM ISSED . 1 I. T HE P ETITION FO R REVIE W W e re view de novo whether w e have subje ct-m atter j urisdictio n. S ee Br ooks v. A shc ro ft , 283 F . 3d 1 268, 127 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . Whil e w e ge ne ra lly have j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wf ina l or de rs of

r em ova l, the pe tit ionf

or r ev ie wm

ust be fil edwit hi n 3 0 d ay s o f th e d at e o f th e fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al . See INA §Be cause Be cer ra- Rojas’s remova l proce eding s commence d afte r 1 April 1997, the 2 perma nent rules of

the I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S t at . 3 0 0 9 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ II R IRA ” ) , a p p l y. 3 242( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T he statut or y ti m e lim it fo r fi lin g a dir ec t pe tit ionf

or r ev ie win anim

m igr at ionc as e is “ ‘ m an dator y and j ur isd ic tio na l, ’ and [ is] not sub j ec t t o e qui ta

ble tol lin g. ” S ton e v. I m

m igr at ionand N at ur al iz at ionS er

v. , 514 U . S. 386 , 405 , 115 S . Ct . 153 7, 154 9 ( 1995 ) (c itatio n om itted) (construing th e form er 90-day period for filing a petition for reviewunder the IN A § 106(a)( 1), 8 U .S .C. § 1105 a(a) ). Am otion to reconsider or re open filed with the BIAdoes not s uspendthe finality of the underly ing BIA order and does not tol l the r ev ie wpe ri od. S ee S ton e, 514 U . S. a t 40 5- 06, 115 S . Ct . a t 15 49. Inthe ins tant c as e, the BI Aa ff irm ed the I J’ s or de r on 2 4 June 200 4, and 2 Bec erra -Ro

jas d idno t fi le hi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w un ti l 1 0 S ep te m be r 20 04 . T houg h B ec er

ra -R oj as f

ile d am oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n, thi s m oti on d id n ot t oll th e t i me f o r ap p e a l i n g th e i n i t i a l a f

f i rmat i o no f

th e I J ’s o r d e r . Ac c o r d i n g l y, because m ore than 30 day s passed between the BI A’ s affir m ation of the IJ’ s order and the filing of the petiti on for review , w e lack j urisdictio n to review the initial affir m ation. T he petition for r eview is there fore DISM ISSED .4

II. TH E D ENIA L OF THE M OTION FO R RECO NS IDER ATION T he gov er

nm en t a gr ee s th at

w e do h av e j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe de nia l of Bece rra- Roj as’ s m otion for r econsideration. W e re view the BI A’ s denial of a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. As sa ’A d v . Uni te d S ta te s AG, 332 F. 3d 1 321, 134 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) , c er t. de nie d, 125 S . Ct . 38 ( 2004 ). Whe n th e BI Aha s pr ope rl y

a ff irm ed an I J’ s or de r, de nia l of

an a lie n’ s m oti on f

or re co nsi de ratio n is a lso appr opr iate . S ee id. a t 13 40- 41 ( af fi rming de nia l of

m oti on fo r re co nsi de ratio n w ith out e xte nde d di sc uss ionbe ca use BI A ’ s in iti al de ci sio n wa s appropriate). A n a lie n is e lig ibl e fo r as y lum if suc h a lie n m ee ts the I m

m igr at ionand Naturalization Act’ s (IN A’ s) definition of a “ refugee. ” Se e IN A § 208(b)(1), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( b) (1 ). I n m ost c as es , to de m onstrate “ re fu ge e” status und er the IN A , an a lie n m

ust sho wthat he is out sid e of his c ountry

be ca use of “pe rs ec uti on o r awe l l - f o u n d e df e ar o f p e r s e c u t i o no na c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m em bership in a particular social group, or political opin ion.” IN A § 101(a)( 42)(A) , 8 U .S .C. § 1101 (a)( 42)(A) ; accord S epulveda, 401 F.3d at 1230 . W e have indicated that “persecution is an extrem e concept, requiring m ore than a fewisolated inciden ts of verbal harassm ent or intim idation , and that [m ] ere hara ssm en t do es not

am ount to pe rs ec uti on. ” S ep ulv ed a, 401 F . 3d at 12 315

(punctuatio n om itted). M oreover, the fac t that an alien has engaged in po litical activity that dissi dent group s oppo se does not b y itself com

pel the conclusio n that vi ol en ce d ire ct edag ai ns t t ha t al ie n i s o n a cco un t o f su ch po li ti cal act iv it y . See i d. (h old ing that the f

ac t that a bom b e xpl ode d inar es taur an t whe re ape ac e pr ote st organizer w as present did not“ com pel the conclusio n” that m ilitant groups had targeted the organizer on account of her political activity ). In order to establish a we ll-founded fear of f uture persecution, such a fe ar m ust be “ ‘ subjectively

genuine and ob

j ectively rea sonable.’ ” Id. at 1231. Where the a lle ge d pe rs ec uto rs w er e not a sso ci at ed

w iththe gov er

nm en t, the a lie n m

ust s h o wth a th e c o u l dn o th a v e av o i d e dp e r s e c u t i o nb y r e l o c a t i n g w i th i nh i s h o me co u n try. Id . Wh en an IJ p o i n t s t o m ea n i n g fu l d i ff er en ce s b et we en an al i en ’s as ylu m ap p l i ca t i o nan dt es t i m o n y atth e mer i t s h ea ri n g , we wi l l d ef ert o th e I J ’s cr ed ibi lity

de te rminatio n. S ee D -M uhum ed v. U nit ed

S tate s A G , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 819 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). In the instant case, the I J’ s opin ion correctly noted that Becerr a-Roj as claim ed in his asy lum

application th at the group of stud ents beat him , but om itted this claim during hi s direct testim ony . Thus, w e defe r to the IJ’ s finding that Be ce rr a- Ro

j as ’ s c la im

that he w as be at enw as not c re dib le . W ithr es pe ct

to6

Be ce rr a- Ro

j as ’ s a lle gatio ns o f de ath thre at s and v er ba l hara ssm en t, w e fi nd that, ev enif c re dit ed , the se a lle gatio ns w er e ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on. W ithr es pe ct

to futur e pe rs ec uti on, Be ce rr a- Ro j as pr of fe re d an art ic le to the BIAwhich stated that “ violence [undertaken by the Shining Path] will be low -key an d w ill take pla ce m ai nly in part s of

P er u th at are of li ttl e pol iti ca l or

e co nom ic im portance, such as shantytowns in Lim a and towns in the jungle or the A ndean hig hlands. ” T hus, be ca

use Be ce rr a- Ro

j as c oul d avoi d f

uture pe rs ec uti on b y relocating within Peru, he has not sho wn a we ll-founded fear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. A cc or din gly , the I J’ s de ci sio n th at Be ce rr a- Ro

j as w as not

e nti tle d to as y lum w as c or re ct , and, the BI Adid

not e rr by de ny ing Be ce rr a- Ro

j as ’ s m oti on fo r rec on si de rat io n. III. C ONC LUS ION Hav in g re vi ewedth e p art ie s’ bri efs an d t he reco rdan d fo un d n o e rro r, we AFFIRM the BI A ’ s de nia l of r ec onsi de ratio n and DISM ISS his pe tit ionf or rev ie w.