FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 80 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -5 72 -2 22 HAMLET MENDOZAFLORES,

Pet it io ne r, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st30 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ham le t M en do za Fl or es , age 28 , is a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Ni cara gu a. He

en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s o n S ep te m be r 9, 2 00 1, wi th ou t i ns pe ct io n i n S anDieg o, Cal ifo rn ia . On Ja nu ary 8, 2 00 9, Imm ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t (“ ICE”) to okFlo res in to cu st od y , andon Jan ua ry 22 , 20 09 , ICE se rv edhi m with ano ti ce t o ap pe ar, ch arg in g h im

with b ei ng subjec t t o re m ov al un de r Imm ig rat io n and Natu ral iz at io n Act(“ INA”) § 21 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ). On Aug us t 2 7, 2 00 9, h e ap pe aredwith c ou ns el be fo re an Im m ig rat io n Jud ge (“ IJ ”), co nc ed edrem ov ab il it y

an d s ta te d t ha t h e wou ldap pl y forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Fl or es th erea fte r ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m as we ll as wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e INA an d p ro te ct io n und er the Co nv en ti onAgai ns t To rtu re, (CAT”) an d pr es en te d h is ap pl ic at io n t o a n IJ on Nov em be r 5, 2 00 9. Th e ap pl ic at io n was ba se d o n t wo ev en ts : (1 ) th e Dece m be r 22 , 19 87 de ath o f Fl or es ’s fathe r, a San di ni st a p ol ic e o ffi cer wh o o pp os edth e reg im e’s Mar xi st -Len in is t i de ol og y an d was pre ve nt edfro m

lea vi ng th e p ol ic e fo rce; (2) th e Ja nu ary 2, 1 98 9 d eat h o f Fl or es ’s un cl e, a ci vi l em pl oyee of th e San di ni st a p ol ic e, who was k il le d a fte r ex pr es si ng hi s an ti -San di ni st a p ol it ic al op in io n i n a n a rg um en t wi thanarm y m ajor . Fl or es ’s app li cat io n was he ardbe fo re an IJ o n Ap ril 6, 2 01 0, atwhi ch ti m e he an d h is m ot he r te st ifi ed . On d ire ctex am in at io n, Fl or es rei te rat edth e co nt en ts 2of

hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndsai d tha t h e fea redfor hi s s afet y

if re tu rn edto Nica rag ua . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, h e ad m it te d t ha t was no t p ol it ic al ly acti ve in Nica rag uaan d th atforten -twe lv e y ears aft er h is fathe r’s de ath (a ndhi s m ot he r ha d c om e to th e Uni te d S ta te s) , he andhi s s ib li ng s l iv edsaf el y with h is grandpa ren ts in Nica rag ua , ne ar Ma na gu a. Flo res ’s m ot he r, who ha d b een in th e Uni te d S ta te s s in ce 1 98 8 a nd ha d b eco m e a U.S. ci ti zen , tes ti fie d t ha t, i n 2 00 8, dur in g avi si t t o Ni cara gu a, sh e le arn edth athe r hu sb an d h adbe enki ll edbe cau se hi s p ol it ic al op in io n d iff ered fro m th e g ov ern m en t’s, an d t ha t h er b ro th er’s (Fl or es ’s un cl e’s) d eat h o ccurredon acco un t o f he r br ot he r’s an ti -g ov ern m en t p ol it ic al op in io n. At the clo se of t he Apri l 6 he ari ng , th e IJ de ni edFlo res ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m —o n t he gro un d t ha t i t was un ti m el y an d F lo res fai le d t o e st ab li sh ch an ge d ci rcu m st an ces th atwou ldex cu se th e la te fil in g—withh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C AT rel ie f an d o rd eredFlo res rem ov edbe cau se he fai le d t o s ho w th atitwas m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athi s l ife or f reed om wou ldbe th reat en edif re tu rn edto Nica rag ua . Fl or es ap pe al edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) , arg ui ng th atth e IJerre d i n d en y in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . The BI A di sm is se d h is ap pe al on Jan ua ry 31 , 20 11 , fin di ng no erro r in th e IJ ’s dec is io n. The BIA fo un d tha t Fl or es was n oten ti tl edto withh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se he 3fai le d t o s ho w a cle ar p ro babi li ty of fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , no ti ng th athe fai le d t o

co rro bo rat e h is cla im

th athi s fa th er an d u nc le were k il le d a t the ha nd s o f th e San di ni st a g ov ern m en t an d t ha t h is m ot he r ha d re cen tl y go ne to Nica rag uawitho ut ha rm . Flo res ask edth e BIA t o re m an d t he cas e to th e IJ forfurth er fa ct fin di ng ba se d o n h is fathe r’s an d unc le ’s dea th cert ifi cat es , bu t the BIA d ecl in edhi s reque stbe cau se th e certi fic at es di d n otco nf irm th atth e Nic arag ua n g ov ern m en t ha d k il le d h is fathe r an d u nc le onacco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Fl or es no w pet it io ns th is co urt fo r rev ie w. He rais es two is su es : wh ethe r subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s fi nd in gs (1) th athe fai le d t o s ho w ch an ge d o r ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces to ex cu se hi s l at e fi li ng forasylu m an d (2 ) th athe was i ne li gi bl e fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . W e co ns id er the se is su es in 1 or de r. I. W e rev ie w ou r subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F.3 d 7 62 , 76 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . An al ie n m us t fi le hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m withi n o ne y ear o f hi s arriv al in th e Uni te d S ta te s, unl es s h e d em on strat es th e ex is te nc e o f ch an ge d c irc um st an ces th atm at eri al ly affecthi s el ig ib il it y forasylu m In his brief to this court, F lores does not c halleng e the B IA’s denia l of CAT relief , and we 1 there fore do not reviewthe ruling . See Se pulveda v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 463 F.3d 1228, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006) (issue is aba ndoned whe n appellant f

ails to offer

argument). 4orex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces th atrel at e to th e d el ay in fil in g. INA § 2 08 (a)( 2) (B), (D); 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (B), (D). We lackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e Att orne y

Gene ral ’s det erm in at io ns reg ard in g a n a li en ’s com pl ia nc e wit h t he on e-year fil in g d ead li ne , or wh ethe r he sat is fie d o ne of t he st atut ory ex cep ti on s. Se e Rui z , 47 9 F .3dat 7 65 ; INA § 20 8( a)(3 ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(3 ). Acco rd in gl y , be cau se we lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e BIA’s fi li ng de te rm in at io n, we d is m is s th e p et it io n a s t o t he fir stis su e. II. Whe re the BIA is su es it s o wn d eci si on , we rev ie w th atde ci si on , exc ep t t o th e ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Ku evi ak oe v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 7 F .3d13 01 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e rev ie w th e BIA’s l eg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo , andsubjec t i ts factua l fi nd in gs to th e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st . Delgado v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 48 7 F .3d85 5, 8 60 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e aff irm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le . Id . A den ia l o f rel ie f m ay on ly be rev ers edif t he ev id en ce wo ul d c om pe l a r eas on ab le fact -fi nd er t o c on cl ud e th at th e requi si te fearof p ers ecu ti on ex is ts . Id . An al ie n i s en ti tl edto withh ol di ng of r em ov al if h e d em on strat es th athi s l ife orfree do m

wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f hi s ra ce, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, 5m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. Delg ado , 48 7 F .3d at86 0- 61 ; INA § 24 1( b) (3 ); 8 U.S.C. 12 31 (b )(3 ). The al ie n m us t p ro ve th atitis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup onhi s re tu rnto th e co un try in que st io n. Delg ado , 48 7 F .3dat 8 61 . This bu rd enis sat is fie d b y a sh owi ng of p as t p ers ecu ti on in hi s co un try bas edup on a pr ot ect edgro un d, wh ic h crea te s a r eb ut tabl e p res um pt io n o f a fu tu re thr eatto th e al ie n’s l ife or f reed om , or a fu tu re thr eatto th e al ie n’s l ife or f reed om ba se d upo n apro te ct edgro un d. Id . Pers ecu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t tha t re qu ire s m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n. Id . Inord er t o e st ab li shfearof f utur e p ers ecu ti on , th e al ie n m us t p ro ve a subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e fea r of pe rs ecu ti on . Se e Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 31 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). The al ie n m us t d em on st rat e a caus al co nn ect io n b etweenhi s p ol it ic al op in io n a ndth e fea red pe rs ecu ti on by dem on st rat in g ago odreas on to fearth athe wou ldbe si ng le d o ut fo r pe rs ecu ti on be cau se of t ha t o pi ni on . Id . An al ie n’s cr ed ib le tes ti m on y m ay be su ffi ci en t, wi th ou t co rro bo rat io n, t o es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for rel ie f fro m rem ov al . Ch en v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d 12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe re the IJ, h owe ve r, de te rm in es th atth e al ie n sh ou ldpro vi de ev id en ce tha t co rro bo rat es ot he rwis e cre di bl e te st im on y , su ch 6ev id en ce m

us t b e p ro vi de d unl es s h e d em on st rat es th athe do es no t h av e th e ev id en ce an d c an no t re as on ab ly obt ai n t he ev id en ce. INA § 2 40 (c)( 4) (B); 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 4) (B). Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d en ia l o f wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se (1) Flo res di d n otpro vi de th e co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e requi redby the BIA; (2) Flo res di d n otpre se ntan y ev id en ce tha t h e was pe rs on al ly pers ecu te d; (3 ) Fl or es tes ti fie d t ha t h e was no t p ol it ic al ly acti ve in Nica rag uaor t he Uni te d St at es ; (4 ) Fl or es ’s m ot he r’s te st im on y in di cat edth atth e d eat hs of h er h us ba nd an d b ro th er o ccu rredm or e th an20 y ears be fo re the rem ov al he ari ng ; an d (5 ) Fl or es ’s m ot he r te st ifi edth atsh e twi ce re tu rn edto a San di ni st a-g ov ern ed Nica rag uawitho utin ci de nt . Accor di ng ly, th e BIA d idno t err in de nyin g withh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se itfou ndth atitwas n otm or e li ke ly th anno t tha t Fl or es wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu reddu e to hi s p ol it ic al be li efs up on a return t o Ni cara gu a. PETITION DISMIS SED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

7