FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUG 11 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 15770 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 78- 581- 700 A 77- 921- 883 RI CARDO E. VI LL ARRE AL, L U Z M A R I N A L L A N O S R O J A S , J U A N V I L L A R R E A L L L A N O S , 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 11, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R i card o E . V i l l arreal, L u z M ari n a L l an o s R o j as, an d Ju an V i l l arreal L l an o s,Petitioners do not make any argument on appeal reg ardingthe United Nations Convention 1 Ag ainst Torture. They

argue only

that the B IA improperly

denied their

applications for

asylum and withholdingof

remov al. 2 th ro u g h co u n se l, p etit io n fo r r ev iew o f th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on. T he B I A a f f i rm e d the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd f

orw 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 ”) and the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture 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 . F orthe 1 r e a s o n s s e t f

o r th b e lo w , w e g r a n t th e p e titio n in p a r t, d is m is s in p a r t, a n d r e m a n d to th e B IA fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I. P et i t i on er s c on t end thatthei r app l i ca t i on for a sy l um w as no tt i m e- barr ed be c aus e the i rl a t e f

i l i ng w a s j us t i f

i e d. T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tw e do notha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng on thi s i ss ue. W e r e vi e w s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. B r ooks v. A s hc r of t , 283 F . 3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . A n a l i e n c a n appl y f ora s y l um i f

he

“ dem on stra t es by cl ear and conv i nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i ca t i on has bee n fi l ed w ith in 1 y e a ra f

te rth e d a te o f

th e a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite dS ta te s .” 8 U .S .C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . H ow e ve r , “ [ a ] n appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um of

a n a l i e n m a y be consi dere d . . . i f the al i en dem on stra t es t o the sa t i sf ac t i on of the A tt orney G ener al3

e i the rthe e xi s t e nc e 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 y a f f e c tthe appl i c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the d e la y in f

ilin g a n ap p lic a tio n w ith in th e p e r io d s p e c if ie d . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . A l though the B I A m a y c ons i de ra n unt i m e l y a s y l um appl i c a t i on w here the appl i cantm ee t s one of the except i on s t o the on e- ye ardeadl i ne, “ no court shal l have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any det erm i nat i on of the A tt orney G ener al un der [ s e c tio n 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ].” M e n d o z av . U .S . A tt’y G e n e r a l, 3 2 7 F .3 d , 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) . W e h a v e h e ld th at § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ) d iv es ts th is co u rt o f ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e B IA ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t f ile d a n u n tim e ly ap p lic a tio n a n d f a ile d to e s tab lis h c h a n g e d o re x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s to e x c u s e h is u n tim e ly f ilin g . S e e i d. W e ha ve r e c e nt l y he l d tha tj ur i s di c t i ona l pr ovi s i ons i n the R E A L I D A c tof 2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231, 310 ( 2005) , di d nota f f e c tpr i or p r e c e d e n ts o n th is is s u e , s u c h a s M e n d o z a . C h a c o n - B o te r o v . U .S . A tt’y G e n e r a l, 4 2 7 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he IJdet erm i ned thatpet i t i on er s’ as yl um appl i ca t i on w as un t i m el y and that the y ha d f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h c ha nge d ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s t o e xc us e the unt i m e l i ne s s . A c c or di ngl y , 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 nt on appeal thatthe B IA erre d i n thi s r egar d, and w e di sm i ss the pet i t i on for r evi ew4

a s t o p e t i t i o n e r s ’ c l a i ms f o ra s y l u m. II . N ext , pet i t i on er s c hal l enge the B IA ’ s deni al of thei r w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im . P e titio n e r s a r g u e th a t th e y h a v e s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n a n d h a v e aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e of V i l l a rr e a l ’ s pol i t i c a l opi ni on. I n a w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al cl ai m , an al i en shal l no tbe re m ov ed t o a coun tryi f hi s l i fe o r freed o m w o u l d b e th reat en ed o n acco u n to f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, m e m b e r s h ip in ap a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . T he a l i e n m us ts how tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha ts he w i l l be p e r s e c u t e d o rt o r tu r e d u p o n b e i n g r e tu rn e d t o h e rc o u n try . ” Se p u l v e d av . U . S. A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 05 ).

“ If the al i en es t abl i shes pastpers ec ut i on i n h i s c ou ntrybase d o n a prot ec t ed g r o u n d , it is p r e s u m e d th a t h is lif e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld b e th r e a te n e d u p o n r e tu rn to hi s c ountry unl e s s the I N S s how s by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha t , a m ong o th erth in g s, (1 ) th e c o u n try’s c o n d it io n s h av e c h an g ed su ch th at th e a p p li ca n t’ s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d no l onge rbe thr e a t e ne d upon hi s r e m ova l ; or( 2) tha tthe al i en coul d avo i d a future threa tt o h i s l i fe or fr ee do m by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther part of the pr opos e d c ountry of r e m ova l , a nd i tw oul d be r e a s onabl e t o e xpe c thi m t o do s o. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287. “ A n a l i e n w ho ha s nots how n pa s tpe r s e c ut i on,Rojas and Llanos arederiative claimants on Villarreal’ s application. 2 5 tho ug h, m ayst i l l be ent i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al i f he c an dem on stra t e a f u tu r e th r e a t to h is lif

e o rf r e e d o m o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d in h is c o u n try .” I d . I n e va l ua t i ng ac l a i m f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a n I J doe s notha ve the d i scret i o n t o refrain fro m m ak i n g a d et erm i n at i o n as t o th e ex i st en ce o f p ast p e r s e c u tio n if

th e ap p lic a n t h a s p r e s e n te d c r e d ib le e v id e n c e o f s u c h p e r s e c u tio n . A n tip o v av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e f a ilu r e to m a ke s uc h ade t e rm i na t i on pr e c l ude s m e a ni ngf ul r e vi e w . I d. In the i nst antca se , V i l l arre al pres ent ed evi dence thathi s w i fe w as abdu ct ed in C o lo m b iaf

o rf o u rh o u r s b e c au s e o f

h is p o litic a l a c tiv ity . T h e I J f o u n d th is evi dence cr edi bl e, bu tfa i l ed t o m ake adet erm i nat i on of w hether V i l l arre al had s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. I f V i l l a rr e a l s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, he i s e nt i t l e d t o a 2 pres um pt i on thathi s l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened by returni ng t o C ol om bi a. I n tha ts i tua t i on, the bur de n w oul d s hi f tt o the I N S t o pr ove , by apr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence, thatV i l l arre al ’ s l i fe or fr ee do m i s notthrea t ened i n C ol om bi a. H er e, the I J di d notappl y tha tpr e s um pt i on, a l though the I J f ound V i l l a rr e a l ’ s t e s t i m ony c r e di bl e . T he I J s t a t e d: E ve n though I ’ ve vi e w e d the r e c or d i n the l i kabl e [ s i c ] f a vort o the re spon dent , even tho ug h I fi nd thatthe re spon dent ’ s f am i l y di d suffe r s om e m i s tr e a tm e nt , the w i f e w a s ki dnape d, I c a nnotf i nd tha tthe r e c or d w oul d a l l ow m e t o f i nd tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha tthe6

re spon dentor a f

am i l y m em ber w ou l d suffe r per se cut i on i n the future if th e f a m ily h a d to r e tu rn to C o lo m b ia . T he IJm ent i on ed pastm i stre atm ent , bu ton l y di sc usse d i ti n rel at i on t o w hether V illa rr e a l a n d h is f

a m ily h a d aw e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . T h e I J d id n o t m a k e a n y e x p lic it f

in d in g w ith r e g a r d to w h e th e ro rn o t V illa rr e a l o rh is f a m ily s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n .

“ W here an appl i cantfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al se t s f orth cre di bl e e vi dence th a ts h e h a s s u f

f e r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n i n th e p r o p o s e d c o u n try o f r e mo v a l , 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i) r e q u ir e s th e I J to m a k e af in d in g r e g a r d in g p a s t p e r s e c u tio n .” A nt i po va, 39 2 F . 3d at12 65 . H er e, the IJm ade no d et erm i nat i on of w hether pe t i t i one r s ha d s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on i n C ol om bi a . T he I J ’ s f a i l ur e t o m a ke the appr opr i a t e de t e rm i na t i on, a nd the B I A ’ s f a i l ur e t o r e c t i f

y the e rr or , pr e c l ude s our m e a ni ngf

ul r e vi e w of

the m e r i t s of

the r e m ova l or de r . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the rem o v al o rd er as t o th i s i ssu e an d rem an d t o th e B IA fo r a fi n d i n g reg ard i n g p ast p ersecu t i o n an d th e ap p l i cab i l i ty o f a p resu m p t i o n o f a fu tu re th reatt o p et i t i o n ers’ l i f e o rf r e e d o m. P E T I T I ON DI S MI S S E D I N P AR T , GR AN T E D I N P AR T AN D R EM A N D ED FO R FU R TH ER PR O C EED I N G S.