FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 5, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 0- 11 18 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -6 79 -9 56 PRASADKUMAR S HANKAR NAIK, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 5, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pras adku m ar Sh an ka r Nai k, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof I nd ia , pet it io ns for

rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) di sm is sa l o f hi s ap pe al fro m th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) o rd er o f rem ov al , whi chde ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Immig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), an d re li ef u nd er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Oth er Cr ue l, In hu m an , or Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 (b )(3 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6. He ar gu es , firs t, tha t h e es tabl is he d ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces jus ti fy in g t he un ti m el y fil in g o f hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, an d t ha t thi s i s a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ctth atth is Co urt h as juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w. He furt he r arg ue s t ha t h e is eli gi bl e fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al du e to th e em

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n h e ex pe rie nc edon th e b as is of h is po si ti oninth e In di ancas te syste m . Forth e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we di sm is s 1 th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w inpa rt a ndde ny it i n p art . I. Naiken te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 2 00 0 o n aC-1 no ni m m ig ran t-i n- tra ns it vi sa . In 2 00 6, h e was serve d wi th a Not ic e to App ear t ha t ch arg edhi m with Naik did not appea l to the BIA the denia l of CAT relief , and he doe s not raise this issue 1 in his brief in support of the pe tition for review . Acc ording ly , we lac k jurisdiction to review it. See A maya-

Artunduaga v. U.S. Attorney G en. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (holding that we lac k jurisdiction to review a n argument unless the petitioner ha s exhausted his administrative re medies); Sepulve da v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (holdingthat an issue not ra ised in the initial brief is abandone d). 2ov ers ta y in g h is vi sawitho utau th or iz at io n, i n v io la ti on of I NA § 2 37 (a)( 1) (B), 8

U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(B) . Naik adm it te d t he all eg at io ns an d c on ced edrem ov ab il ity . In20 09 , he app li edfor

asylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f ba se d o n hi s m em be rs hi p i n t he Mo ga ve era c as te . He ackno wled ge d t ha t h e was fil in g h is ap pl ic at io n m or e th anon e y ear a fte r hi s arriv al inth e Uni te d S ta te s, b utex pl ai ne d th athe was n otkn owl ed ge ab le ab ou t Un it edSta te s i m m ig rat io n l aw an d h ad or ig in al ly beenadvi se d b y anatt orne y

to see k l ab or

cert ifi cat io n andad

jus tm en t o f st atus rathe r th anasylu m . Naiktes ti fie d t ha t the Mo ga ve era c as te is on e le ve l ab ov e th e Dal it s, o r

“un to uc habl es ,” in Ind ia ’s cas te syste m , andis on e o f th e Bac kwa rdCla ss es , th e cas te s an d c omm

un it ie s t ha t ar e o ffi ci al ly recog ni zedas h is to ric al ly di sa dv an ta ge d. Be cau se anin di vi du al ’s cas te hi st or ic al ly dic ta te d t he types of job s t ha t h e o r sh e co ul d p erfo rm , th e Mo ga ve era andot he rs inth e lo wes t ca st es ha d b een li m it edto cle an in g, ag ric ul tu re, an d s im il ar wo rk , andNaiksai d t ha t em pl oyers co nt in ue d t o d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t the lo wer cas te s i n h iri ng an d adva nc em en t o pp ortu ni ti es . The In di ango ve rn m en t’s ef fo rts to all ev ia te di sc riminat io n a ga in stth e Bac kwardCla ss es ha d n otbe enve ry effe ct iv e. He st at edth athe ha d b eenwork in g a s a c oo k d es pi te ha vi ng earn eda Bac he lo r of Co m m erce de gr ee. He h adap pl ie d fo r th ree o ffi ce job s b utha d n otbe en 3in te rv ie wedforan y of t he m , whi chhe be li ev edto have be endu e to cas te -b as ed di sc riminat io n. He s ta te d t ha t i t was di ffi cu ltto supp ort h is pa ren ts an d s ib li ng s on hi s s al ary of

$5 0 p er m on th , andhe feare d the eco no m ic hard sh ip he wou ld co nt in ue to face if h e were t o re tu rnto Ind ia . He hadne ve r be enbe at enor ot he rwis e p hysic al ly harm edonth e b as is of h is cas te , on ly dis cri m in at edag ai ns t so ci al ly andinem

pl oym en t. The IJ d en ie d a ll of Na ik ’s reque st s fo r rel ie f an d o rd eredhi m rem ov edto In di a. He fo un d t ha t the asylu m ap pl ic at io n was ti m e-b arre d a ndth atNaik ’s ig no ran ce o f th e la w di d n otsat is fy th e ex tra or di na ry -ci rcu m st an ces st an da rdfor ex cu si ng th e la te fil in g. As to withh ol di ng of r em ov al , th e IJfou ndNaik ’s te st im on y to be cred ib le an d c on si st en t, an d h e co nc lu de d t ha t Nai k h ad ex pe rie nc eddi sc riminat io n a ndwou ldco nt inue to do so up on hi s re tu rnto Ind ia . Nev erthe le ss , Naikha d n otest ab li sh eda th reatto hi s l ife or f reed om , as m ere di sc riminat io n d oe s n otris e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . Fin al ly, Naikwas in el ig ib le forCAT rel ie f be cau se no th in g i n t he reco rdin di cat edth athe was l ik el y to be to rtu redon hi s re tu rn . Naikap pe al edto th e BIA the de ni al of a sylum an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al on ly. The B IA di sm is se d h is ap pe al , con cl ud in g t ha t (1 ) Nai k h adno t es tabl is he d ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces jus ti fy in g t he lat e fi li ng of t he asylu m ap pl ic at io n, (2 ) 4di sc riminat io n, wi th ou t m or e, was in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pe rs ecu ti on , and(3)

Naikha d b een ab le to att en d c ol le ge an d s ecu re g ai nf ul em pl oym en t, an d the reco rddi d n otin di cat e th athe li ve d a n i m po ve ris he d e xi st en ce ab ov e an d b ey on d th e g en eral eco no m ic cir cu m st an ces inInd ia . II. W e rev ie w ou r subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Frec h v . U.S. Att or ne y Gen . , 49 1 F .3d12 77 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). An al ie n m ay ap pl y for asylu m withi n o ne y ear o f hi s arriv al inth e Uni te d S ta te s. 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(2 )(B) . The BIA m ay co ns id er a l at e ap pl ic at io n i f th e al ie n d em on st rat es ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fy in g t he de la y infil in g t he ap pl ic at io n. Id. § 1 15 8( a)(2 )(D). W e d o n otha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w any tim el in es s d et erm in at io n, i nc lu di ng a fin di ng th atth e al ie n h as fai le d t o s ho w ext rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces . Se e id. § 11 58 (a)( 3) ; Ch ac on -Bot er o v . U.S. Att or ne y Gen . , 42 7 F .3d95 4, 9 56 -5 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Men do za v. U.S. Att or ne y Gen . , 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). The refo re, we d is m is s Nai k’s p et it io n i ns of ar as itsee ks rev ie w of t he de te rm in at io n t ha t h is ap pl ic at io n was un ti m el y an d h e h adfai le d t o e st ab li sh ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces jus ti fy in g t he lat e fi li ng . III. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atitex pr es sl y ad op ts 5th e IJ ’s op in io n o r rel ie s upo n h is reas on in g. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Here, the BIA ad op te d t he IJ’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n bu t s ep arat el y

de sc rib edit s re as on in g a s t o wh ethe r Nai k h adsat is fie d t he withh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al st an da rd , and , th us , we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s op in io n. Factua l d et erm in at io ns are re vi ewedun de r th e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, wh ic h requi res us to “ rev ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Rui z v. U.S. Atto rn ey Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ [W] e m us t affi rm th e [BI A’ s] dec is io n i f itis supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le ,” an d we wi ll no t re ve rs e un le ss th e rec or d c om

pe ls a co nt rary con cl us io n. Id. at 1 25 4- 55 (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m , an a li enm us t s ho w th athe is a “ refu ge e” un de r th e INA by dem on st rat in g e ithe r (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on onth e b as is of a pr ot ect edgro un d, o r (2 ) a wel l-f ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on onth e b as is of a pr ot ect edgro un d. Se

pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att or ne

y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 -3 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). A m or e st rin ge ntst an da rdis ap pl ie d t o c la im s fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al . Id. at12 32 . To es tabl is h t ha t h e is en ti tl edto withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, anali enm us t s ho w th athi s “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en ed ” 6in th e co un try of rem ov al on th e b as is of apro te ct edgro un d. Id. “ The ali enbe ars

th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g tha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n ot[he ] wil l b e p ers ecu te d orto rtu redup on be in g re tu rn edto [hi s] cou ntry .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . An al ie n wh o c an no t m eetth e wel l-f ou nd ed -fea r st an da rdforasylu m ge ne ral ly can no t s at is fy

th e h ig he r m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otst an da rdforwithh ol di ng of rem ov al . Id. at 1 23 2- 33 . Pers ecu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t. Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1. Em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n t ha t s to ps sh ort o f de pr iv in g t he in di vi du al of am ean s of earn in g ali vi ng , su chas l os in g ade si redjob an d b ei ng for cedto tak e m en ia l work i ns te ad , do es no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on . Barre to -Clar o v . U.S. Att orne y Gen . , 27 5 F .3d13 34 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Naikackno wled ge s tha t h e h as ne ve r be enph y si cal ly harm ed , andhe do es no t al le ge th athe was e ve r arre st edor d et ai ne d. He s ta te s o nl y th atem pl oym en t di sc riminat io n p rev en te d h im fro m ob ta in in g a n o ffi ce job an d fo rcedhi m to co nt in ue work in g a s a c oo k, an d t ha t h e wou ldco nt in ue to face su ch di sc riminat io n upo n re tu rn in g t o In di a. Thes e fac ts alo ne do no t ri se to th e le ve l of pe rs ecu ti on . Se e Bar re to -Clar o , 27 5 F .3dat 1 34 0. Fu rth erm or e, al th ou gh he te st ifi edth atitwas d iff

ic ul t t o s up po rt h is fam il y on hi s s al ary of

$5 0 p er m on th , he di d n otsubm itany

ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t d is cri min at io n fo rcedhi m to li ve an 7aty

pi cal ly im

po ve ris he d e xi st en ce i n l ig htof t he eco no m ic co nd it io ns inInd ia . The refo re, Nai k h as no t s ho wn tha t h e is m or e li ke ly than n otto face pe rs ecu ti on up on hi s re tu rnto Ind ia , and , th us , has no t es tabl is he d e li gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al . Se e S

ep ulved a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d is m is s Nai k’s p et it io n i ns of ar as he see ks rev ie w of t he ti m el in es s o f hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, an d d en y

th e p et it io n wi th res pe ctto hi s re qu es t fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART AND DENIE D IN PART.

8