FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 2, 2008 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- 15462 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 902- 739 & A 95- 902- 740 F R A N C O Y O V A N Y M A R T I N E Z A L V A R A D O , 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 do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 2, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dD U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P et i t i on er s F ranco Y ov any M art i nez- A l vara do (“ A l vara do ”) and h i s w i fe E vel yn B er eni ce B as t i das- R od ri gu ez (“ R od ri gu ez ”) , throu gh coun se l , se ek re vi ew of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) o r d e rf

i n d i n g th e m r e mo v ab l e a n dd e n y i n g th e i rc l a i ms f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe 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 lie f u n d e rth e U n ite dN a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a n dO th e rC ru e l, Inhu m an and D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . W e r e v ie w o n lyth e B I A ’s d e c is io n e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a dopt e d the I J ’ s opi ni on orr e a s oni ng. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . H e r e , the B I A i s s ue d i t s ow n de c i s i on, s o w e r e vi e w onl ythe B I A’ s d e c i s i o n . Wh e n c o n s i d e r i n g ap e t i t i o n t o r e v i e w aB I A f i n a l o r d e r , we r e v ie w le g a l is s u e s d e n o v o . M o h a m m e dv . A s h c r o f t, 2 6 1 F .3 d1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). T he B IA ' s f ac tual fi nd i ng s are re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence t es t . A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 84 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). U nd erthi s t es t , w e m ustaf fi rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f

i ti s “ s upport e d byr e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” I d. “ T o r e ve r s e af a c tua l f i ndi ng by the B I A , [ w e ] m us tf

i nd notonl ytha tthe e vi de nc e s upport s ac ontr a ryc onc l us i on, buttha ti tc om pe l s one . ” F a r quha r s on v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 246 F . 3d 1317, 1320 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e f

a c t th a t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r dm a ya ls o s u p p o rt a co n cl u si o n co n trary t o th e ad m i n i strat i v e fi n d i n g s i s n o ten o u g h t o j u st i fy a3

re vers al . A defe m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc). F ir s t, p e titio n e r s a r g u e th a t e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is te dth a t s h o u ld ha ve appl i e d t o e xc us e the unt i m e l yf i l i ng of the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. T he g o v e rn me n tr e s p o n d s th a tw e l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rth i s c l a i m. W e r e v i e w s u b

j e c tma tt e rj u r i s d i c t i o n d e n o v o . G o n z a l e z - O r o p e z av . U . S. A tt ’ yG e n. , 321 F . 3d 1331, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A n a l i e n m a yappl yf ora s y l um i f “ the al i en dem on stra t es by cl ear and conv i nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i ca t i on has been fi l ed w i thi n 1 ye araf t erthe dat e of the al i en’ s arr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ” I N A § 208( a ) ( 2) ( B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . A n a l i e n m a yappl yf ora s y l um m ore than o ne ye araf

t erarri val i f the al i en “ dem on stra t es . . . ei ther the exi st ence of c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h m a t e r i a l l ya f f e c tthe appl i c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf or as yl um or extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s r el at i ng t o the del ayi n fi l i ng an appl i c a t i on. ” I N A § 208( a ) ( 2) ( D ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . “ N o c ourts ha l l ha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any det erm i nat i on ” thatan appl i ca t i on w as un t i m el y or f ai l ed t o e s t ab l i s h c h a n g e do re x tr a o r d i n a ryc i r c u m s t a n c e s t o e x c u s e th e d e l a y . I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) . W e h av e h eld th at § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ) d iv es ts o u r ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e B IA ’s d e c is io n th a t a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t f ile da n u n tim e lyap p lic a tio n o rf a ile dto e s t abl i s h 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 the unt i m e l yf i l i ng. C ha c on- B ot e r o v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 956- 57 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng4

M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ) . F urthe r , the t i m el i ness of an as yl um appl i ca t i on i s nota c on st i tut i on al cl ai m or qu es t i on of l aw thatw e c ou l d revi ew pu rs uantt o b y the R E A L ID A ct . C hacon-B ot er o, 42 7 F . 3d at 957. 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 rpe t i t i one r s ’ a r gum e nttha tthe B I A e rr e d i n hol di ng the a s y l um appl i c a t i on unt i m e l yand w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on a s to a s y lu m . S e c o n d , p e titio n e r s a r g u e th e B I A e rr e din n o t r e v e r s in g th e d e n ia l o f th e ir w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im b e c au s e A lv a r a d o s u f f e r e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n f

o rh is po l i t i ca l op i ni on . A l vara do st at es he w as po l i t i ca l l y a ct i ve i n the E cuadori an R ol do si st a P arty ( “ P R E ”) and U ni dad D em ocra t i caE cuat ori ana ( E cuadori an D e m oc r a t i c U ni ty ) ( “ U D E ” ) pa rt i e s , a nd tha tF ue r z a s A rm a da s R e vol uc i ona r i a s de C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ”) pers ec ut ed hi m because of hi s r ef usal t o run for pol i t i ca l o f f ic e o n th e irb e h a lf

. H e a s s e rts h e w ill f

a c e f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b e c au s e h is f a m ily ar e “ po l i t i ca l m i l i t ant s, ” and the go vernm entcann otprot ec thi m . H e a l so ar gu es the I Ja nd the B I A e rr e d i n f i ndi ng he w a s s ubj e c tt o thr e a t s a l one a nd i gnor e d the p h y s ic a l a tta c ko n h im . A n a lie n s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l m u s t s h o w th a t “it is m o r e lik e ly th an n o th e w i l l b e su b

j ectt o p ersecu t i o n b ased u p o n race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, pol i t i c a l opi ni on, orm e m be r s hi p i n apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup. ” J a vi e rR ui z v. G on za l es , 47 9 F . 3d 76 2, 76 5-76 6 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). T he st atut e a l so covers5

pers ec ut i on by no n-go vernm ent al grou ps thatthe “ go vernm entcann otcontrol . ” J a i m e R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 1257- 58 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he ap p l i can tm u stsh o w ei th er p astp ersecu t i o n o n a p ro t ect ed g ro u n d , w h i ch rai ses a r e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on of f utur e ha rm , ors how af utur e thr e a tt o hi s l i f

e or f r e e dom l i ke w i s e ba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound. M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . P e r s e c ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng

“ m or e tha n af

e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on . . . [ a nd m ] e r e ha r a s s m e nti s notpe r s e c ut i on. ” J a vi e rR ui z , 479 F . 3d a t766. M e na c i ng ph on e c al l s and threa t s are no tsuff i ci entevi dence of pastpers ec ut i on t o requi re re vers al . S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W h e r e th e ap p lic a n t r e c e iv e dth r e a ts , a tte m p te da tta c k s , a n dw a s p h y s ic a lly a tt a c k e do n a c c o u n to f

h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n o v e rap e r i o do f s e v e r a l m o n th s , we h a v e h e ldth a t s u c h m is tr e a tm e n t is s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . M e

jia v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 49 8 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 57 -58 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( as yl um cont ext ). R e s i s t a nc e t o f

or c e d r e c rui tm e ntdoe s notbyi t s e l f qua l i f ya s pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

pol i t i c a l opi ni on. I . N . S . v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 481- 82, 112 S .C t. 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 1 7 L .E d .2 d3 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . L ik e w is e , e v id e n c e o f a c ts o f p r iv a te vi ol e nc e orf

a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e w i th gue r i l l a s “ doe s notc ons t i tut e e vi de nc e of pers ec ut i on base d o n a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . ” J ai m e Rui z, 44 0 F . 3d at 1 2 5 7 - 5 8 . F a m ilym e m b e r s liv in g u n h a rm e din th e h o m e c o u n tryw e a k e n s ac la im6

of w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. I d. a t1259. I f the a ge nc ydoe s notf

i nd the al i en’ s t es t i m on y i ncre di bl e, w e t ake the t es t i m on y a s true. M ej i a, 49 8 F . 3d at 1254 n. 2. A l though the B I A m i s i nt e rpr e t e d the r e c or d byf a i l i ng t o c onne c tthe be a t i ng A lv a r a d o s u f

f e r e dw ith th e th r e a ts b yF A R C , th is e rr o rd o e s n o t r e q u ir e r e v e r s a l. O ther e vi dence s ho w s thatF A R C w as i nt er es t ed i n rec rui t i ng A l vara do t o actas the i rpol i t i c a l a ge ntorba s e d on hi s a c c e s s t o m e di c i na l s uppl i e s orm one y , a nd not p e r s e c u tin g h im o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n . T hi r d, A l va r a do a r gue s tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e doe s nots upportde ni a l of hi s c l ai m for C A T re l i ef , as he w i l l be construct i vel y t ortured by the E cuadori an g o v e rn me n tb e c au s e i tc a n n o ta d e q u a t e l yp r o t e c th i m. I n aC A T c la im , th e b u r d e n o f p r o o f is o n th e ap p lic a n t to s h o w th a t it is

“ m ore l i kel y than n ot ” he w ou l d fac e t orture i f r eturned t o h i s c ou ntry . A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d a t1303. H e m us ta l s o s how thi s t ortur e w i l l be done w i th the a c qui e s c e nc e of

the gove rnm e nt . R odr i gue z M or a l e s v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 488 F . 3d 884, 891 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . T he bur de n of pr oof of a n appl i c a nts e e ki ng w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the st atut e i s hi gh erthan thatfor an asy l um appl i cant . A l N ajj ar , 257 F . 3d a t1303. T he deci si on t o d eny the C A T appl i ca t i on i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence because pet i t i on er s have notpres ent ed any e vi dence thatthey w i l l fa ce7

to rtu r e b yo rw ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f th e E c u a d o r ia n g o v e rn m e n t. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the pa rt i e s , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w w ith r e g ar dto a s y lu m , a n dd e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w w ith r e g a r dto w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n dC A T r e lie f . D I S M I S S E D I N P A R T A N D D E N I E D I N P A R T .