2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-14-2008 

# F orkp a-B io v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1938

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F ork p a -B io v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 369. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/369NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 1938

___________ M UL BA H B . F OR KP A- BI O, P eti ti o n er, v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 72- 502- 971) I m m i gr at i on J udge: R os al i nd K . M al l oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober10, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t M u lb a h B . F o rk p a -b io , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f L ib e ria , w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ite d S ta te s o n o r a b o u t J u ly 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 o n a n o n -i m m ig ra n t B -1 v is a . H e o v e rs ta y e d .A n al i en s eeki ng t o l egal i ze hi s s t atus thr ough I R C A m us thave f i l ed a 1 l e g a l i z a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n b e twe e n M a y5 , 1 9 8 7 a n d M a y4 , 1 9 8 8 . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 5 a(a )(1)(A ). 2 A b o u t se v e n tee n y e a rs la ter , o n Ju ly1 , 1 9 9 9 , F o rk p a -b io f iled a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w ith the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) . T he I N S r efe rr ed i tt o an I m m i gr at i on J udge, and, on J ul y5, 2000, For kpa- bi o w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear ( “N T A ”) , al l egi ng thathe w as r emovabl e underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct (“ IN A ” ) § 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(1 )(B ), as a n o n -im m ig ra n t w h o re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s f

o r a tim e lo n g e r th a n p e rm itt e d . T h e N T A in d ica ted th a t F o rk p a -b io w as t o appea ron A ugus t29, 2000 atthe I m m i gr at i on C our ti n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. H e fa i l ed t o appea rand w as or der ed r emoved in a b se n tia . For kpa- bi o’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs s ubs equent l yw er e r eopene d, and, on February15, 2005, he appe ar ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ata mast ercal endar h ea ri n g , an d ad m itted th e f ac tual all eg ati o n s co n tai n ed in the N o ti ce to A p p ea r. T h e IJ thus found hi m r emovabl e as char ged. For kpa- bi o expr es s ed a w i s h t o pur s ue hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, and the I J ques t i oned hi m t o det erm i ne w hetherhe w as el i gi bl e foranyother form s of r el i ef. T he I J det erm i ned thathe w as i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval under8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) , beca us e he ha d been s epar at ed fr om hi s onl yqual i fy i ng r e l a t i v e f o rf i v e y e a r s a n d c o u l d n o tth e r e f o r e s h o w h a r d s h i p t o th a tr e l a t i v e , s e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(D ). T h e IJ a lso f o u n d that lega li za ti o n u n d er the Im m igrati o n an d R ef o rm A ctof 1986 ( “I R C A ”) w as no l ongeravai l abl e. T he I J fur therfound thatFor kpa- bi o w as 1T he governm entnot es i n i t s br i ef on a ppeal that , forA ugus t2008, i m m i gr ant 2 vi s as ar e ava i l abl e fors i bl i ngs of U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens w hos e i m m i gr antvi s a pet i t i ons w ere fil ed in S ep tem b er 1 9 9 7 . S ee U . S . D ep ’to f S tat e V isa B u ll eti n (A u g . 2 0 0 8 ), a v a ilab le a t h t tp : // tr a v e l . s t a t e . g o v / v i s a / f r v i /b u l l e t i n /b u l l e t i n 4 3 1 0 . h t ml . 3 no tel i gibl e t o ad

j ustst atus i n the absence o f an a pp roved F orm I- 13 0 im m i grantvis a pet i t i on. O n A pr i l 12, 2005, For kpa- bi o agai n appea r ed bef or e the I J , and pr ovi ded a c opy of a r ece i ptnot i ce f

ora For m I - 130 fi l ed on hi s behal f byhi s U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen brot her. T he IJ conti nu ed p roceedings for processi ng of the vis a peti t i on , and al so r ecomm ended thatFor kpa- bi o s eek the as s i s t ance of an a t t orney . For kpa- bi o appea r ed at h is c o n tin u e d m a ste r c a len d a r h e a rin g o n D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 5 , an d in f o rm e d th e IJ th a t h is F orm I- 13 0 h ad n ot been ap proved . T he IJ not ed that , even w i th an app roved v i sa pet i t i on, the t i m e t o adj us ts t atus fors i bl i ngs of U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens w as veryl ong. 2 T h e IJ a g a in e n c o u ra g e d F o rk p a -b io to re tain c o u n se l. O n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , F o rk p a -b io a p p e a re d w ith o u t co u n se l f o r h is m e rits h e a rin g . H e tes tifie d th a t h e f e a rs r e tu rn in g to L ib e ria b e c a u se it i s n o t a s a f e p lac e to l i ve, and governm entoffi ci al s orot her s w oul d be j eal ous of hi m due t o the t i m e he s pent in th e U n ited S tate s. H e tes tifie d th a t h is p a re n ts a n d b ro th e r w e re k ill e d d u rin g th e c iv il w ari n 1993 and hi s t ow n w as burned dow n. W hen as ked w hyhe di d notfi l e an a s y l um appl i cat i on pr i ort o 1999, he ans w er ed thathe “ne verthoughtof that ” bec aus e he w as m a rrie d a n d w a s u n a w a re o f th e a sy lu m p ro c e d u re . A .R . 1 9 1 -9 2 , 2 2 4 . P rio r to c o m in g to4

the U ni t ed St at es , he w as unabl e t o obt ai n empl oym entw i th the Li ber i an governm ent beca us e of hi s m ember s hi p i n t he B el l e tr i be. A . R . 168- 69, 173. T he Li ber i an governm enti s dom i nat ed byA m er i co- L i ber i ans , w ho di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tnat i ve L i ber i ans . H ow ever , he found e m pl oym entw i th “pr ofi ti ns t i tut i ons . ” A . R . 169. O ne of h i s b r o th e r s l i v e s i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d h i s f i v e s i s t e r s r e ma i n i n L i b e r i a . A. R. 1 7 6 . He di d notknow the l ocat i on of fourof hi s br other s . A . R . 176. A ddi t i onal l y , he t es t i fi ed thathe fe ar ed bei ng r obbed upon r eturni ng t o L i ber i a bec aus e thos e w ho ar e per cei ved as havi ng m oneyar e oft en the vi ct i m s of r obber i es . A . R . 179- 83. T h e g o v e rn m e n t su b m itt e d th e 2 0 0 5 D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate R e p o rt o n H u m a n R ig h ts Pr act i ces i n L i ber i a, and the 1998 D epart m entof St at e Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C ountryC ondi t i ons forL i ber i a. A ccor di ng t o the 1998 Pr ofi l e, i n D ece m ber1989, r ebel for ces l ed byC har l es T ay l orcampai gned t o overthr ow Pr es i dentSam uel D oe. Pr es i dent D oe w as captur ed and e xecut ed i n Sept ember1990, m arki ng the end of cons t i tut i onal g o v ern m en t i n L iberia a n d the b eg inn ing o f a civil w ar, w h ich c o n ti n u ed u n ti l T ay lor’s i naugur at i on as pr es i dentof Li ber i a i n A ugus t1997. Fi ght i ng r es um ed i n 1999, and cont i nued unt i l 2003. Fr om O ct ober2003 unt i l N ovember2005, L i ber i a w as governed by the i nt er i m N at i onal T r ans i t i onal G overnm entof Li ber i a ( “N T G L ”) . O n N ovember23, 2005, E l l en J ohns on- Si r l eaf w on the mul t i - partypr es i dent i al el ect i on. Pr i ort o Pr es i dent Jo h n so n -S irlea f

w in n in g th e e lec tio n , the N T G L w a s c o n sid e re d to h a v e g e n e ra lly res pected the h um an ri gh t s of i t s ci t i zens, al tho ug h p robl em s pers i st ed in som e areas,I f the al i en ca n es t abl i s h “ei therthe exi s t ence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s w hi ch 3 m at er i al l yaff

ectthe appl i cant ’ s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o t he del ayi n fi l i ng the appl i cat i on, ” fa i l ur e t o fi l e the appl i cat i on bythe r el evant d ea d li n e m ayb e e x cu sed . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ). 5 i ncl udi ng deaths fr om m ob vi ol ence , pol i ce a bus e and ha r as s m ent , and har s h pr i s on condi t i ons . I n 2005, unl i ke pr evi ous y ear s , r ebel combat ant s no l ongerr et ai ned contr ol of ru ra l a re a s a n d c iv ilia n a u th o ri tie s g e n e ra lly m a in ta in e d e f f e c tiv e c o n tr o l o v e r r u ra l a re a s . C i vil i an au tho ri t i es gene ral l ym ai ntai ned effecti ve co ntr ol over s ecuri tyforces. A tthe conc l us i on of the mer i t s hear i ng, the I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on, deny i ng For kpa- bi o’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re. T h e a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n w as d en ied a s u n ti m ely , an d the IJ fou nd that Forkp a-bi o d i d n ot es t abli sh exce pti on al or chan ged ci rcum st ances t o ex cuse hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on byA pr i l 1, 1998. 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 2) (re q u irin g th a t an a sy lu m a p p lica n t f ile h is a p p lica tio n w ith in th e o n e y e a r o f h is a rriv a l in the U n it ed S tat es o r A p ri l 1, 19 9 7 , w h iche v er is l ater). 3 T he I J fur therfound thatFor kpa- bi o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a cl earpr obabi l i tythathe w o u ld b e h arm ed o n ac co u n t of a p rotec ted g rou n d if h e w ere to return to L iberia. T h e IJ n o ted th a t F o rk p a -b io d e sc rib e d so m e d isc rim in a tio n in th e f o rm o f f a ili n g to o b tain g o v ern m en t em p loym en t on ac co u n t of h is eth n ici ty , an d that h e c lai m ed to f ea r fu ture p e rse c u tio n d u e to h is s p e c u latio n th a t L ib e ria n s w o u ld b e su sp icio u s o f h is re sid e n c e in the U n it ed S tat es, bu t th ese all eg ati o n s d id n o t r ise t o the lev el of p erse cu ti o n . T h e IJ6

acknow l edged thatFor kpa- bi o cr edi bl ydes cr i bed a hi gh pr eval ence of cr i m e i n L i ber i a, b u t s h e d e te rm in e d th a t th is w a s n o t a b a s is f o r t h e re lie f

o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. W i th r es pectt o hi s C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e cl ai m , the I J found thatFor kpa- bi o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hathe more l i kel ythan notw oul d be t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn t o L i ber i a. T he I J rul ed thatFor kpa- bi o w as el i gi bl e forvol unt arydepartur e, and i s s ued an a l t ernat e or der of r emoval t o L i ber i a. For kpa- bi o appea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , and on M ar ch 4, 2008, the B oar d adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, ci t i ng M att erof B urbano, 20 I . & N . D ec. 872, 874 ( B I A 1994) ( B oar d m ayadoptoraff i r m deci s i on of im m ig ra tio n ju d g e , in w h o le o r in p a rt, w h e n it i s in a g re e m e n t w ith re a so n in g a n d re su lt of thatdeci s i on) . T he B oar d agr eed thatFor kpa- bi o di d notpr es entexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s s uffi ci entt o over come hi s fai l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, and thathe w as notel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval orpr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. I ns t ead of

fi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew w i th thi s C our t , For kpa- bi o att empt ed t o s eek r evi ew of the B oar d’ s M ar ch 4, 2008 deci s i on byfi l i ng a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctW e fi nd thi s tr ans ferpr operi ns ofaras For kpa- bi o fi l ed hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on 4 wi th i n th i r tyd a y s o f

th e Bo a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 3 1 ; s e e a l s o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(1 ). 7 o f P en n sy lvan ia on M arc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 (at D . C . C iv. N o . 0 8 -cv -01 3 8 4 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt tr ans ferr ed the habe as corpus pet i t i on t o thi s C our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1631. 4 W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on gener al l yt o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . H ow ever , beca us e For kpa- bi o fai l ed t o pr es enta cons t i tut i onal cl ai m orques t i on of l aw , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thathe di d nott i m el yfi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. T he I N A pr ecl udes j udi ci al r evi ew of the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on r egar di ng the one- y earfi l i ng deadl i ne and wh e th e re x tr a o r d i n a r yc i r c u ms t a n c e s e x i s tt o e x c u s e th e f i l i n g d e l a y . 8 U. S . C. § 1158( a) ( 3) ; s ee a l s o Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 633 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (ju d icia l re v iew b a r o f

se c tio n 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ) d o e s n o t v io late D u e P ro c e ss C lau se ). D e sp ite thi s bart o r evi ew , w e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew ques t i ons of l aw and cons t i tut i onal i s s ues r egar di ng the appl i cat i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) . J arbough v. U . S. A t t orney G ener al , 483 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . A l though For kpabi o cl ai m s i n hi s openi ng br i ef on a ppeal thatthe deni al of as y l um vi ol at ed hi s E qual Pr ot ect i on and D ue Pr oces s r i ght s , w e fi nd the ar gum enti ns uffi ci entt o i nvoke our j u r i s d i c t i o n . J a rb o u g h , 4 8 3 F . 3 d a t1 9 0 ( a r g u me n tth a tI J s i mp l yr e a c h e d wr o n g o u t c o me is no t pro p erlyv iew ed as c o n sti tuti o n al ch all en g e).8

T u rnin g to the issue s o v er w h ich w e h av e jurisdicti o n , w h ere , as h ere , the B o ard adopt s and af

fi r m s the opi ni on of the I J , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on. See A bdul ai v. A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e IJ’s f ac tual d eterm ination s are uphel d i f theyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U. S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e s t a n d a r d f o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 241( b) ( 3) ( A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) , i s : “the A t t orneyG ener al m aynotr emove an al i en t o a countr yi f the A t t orneyG ener al deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th re a ten e d in th a t co u n tryb e c a u se o f th e a lien ’s r a c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a part i cul ars oci al gr oup orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” The st andar d i s m or e exa ct i ng than the as y l um s t andar d and r equi r es the al i en t o s how bya “c l earpr obabi l i ty ” thathi s l i fe or fr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound i n the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 412 ( 1984) ; s ee al s o I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430 ( 1987) (“w o u ld b e thre aten ed ” stan d ard h as n o su b jecti v e c o m p o n en t) . A n appl i cantforw i thhol di ng of r emoval m ayes t abl i s h thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened upon hi s r eturn t o the pr opos ed countryof r emoval ei therby demonstr at i ng thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n thatcountryon acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound orthathe more l i kel ythan notw oul d s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on i n thatcountryon acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 1) , ( 2) . Per s ecut i on i s defi ned as9

“thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thatthey cons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” K i bi nda v. U . S. A t t orneyG ener al , 477 F. 3d 113, 119 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Fat i n v. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). It “ re f e rs o n lyto se v e re c o n d u c t an d d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll tr eatm entours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. T h e re co rd in this case d o es n o t com p el a f ind ing o f p ast p erse cu ti o n . N o n -sev ere economi c di s cr i m i nat i on of the ki nd not ed bythe I J her e does notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, s ee I n r e: T - Z - , 24 I . & N . D ec. 163, 171- 74 ( B I A 2007) , and an a l l egat i on of pr os pect i ve i nci dent s of r andom vi ol ence does notes t abl i s h per s ecut i on on acc ountof a p rotec ted c h ara cterist ic. S ee K o n an v . U . S . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 3 2 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 6 (3d C ir . 2005) ( gener al condi t i ons of ci vi l unr es torchr oni c vi ol ence and l aw l es s nes s do not gener al l yamount t o per s ecut i on) . T he I J di s m i s s ed For kpa- bi o’ s t es t i m onyabouthi s fea r of futur e per s ecut i on byT ay l orfor ces l y i ng i n w ai t , appr opr i at el yr el y i ng on the 2005 C o u n tryR ep o rtw h ich s p ec ifi ca ll yreb u ts th is t esti m o n y . T h e d ea th o f F o rkp a-b io’s p a re n ts d u rin g th e 1 9 9 3 c iv il w a r in L ib e ria is tra g ic, b u t d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te th a t itis now m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. T he C ountr yR eportr efl ect s thatthe ci vi l w arended i n 2003, and condi t i ons have i m pr oved s i nce thatt i m e. Fur ther , For kpa- bi o pr oduced i ns uffi ci ent evi dence thathe w oul d be t ar get ed form i s tr eatm enton acc ountof hi s t i es t o the U ni t ed10

S t at es or anyprot ect ed g round . T he 1 99 8 P rofi l e no t es that tho usand s of L i beri ans, i ncludi ng P res i den tJohn son-Sir l eaf, hav e l i ved and stud i ed in the U nit ed S t at es. T o est abli sh a basi s for r el i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture, the ali en m ust estab li sh that itis m o re li k elythan n o t th at he w o u ld b e torture d if return ed to the co u n try of r emoval . 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 2) . T or tur e i s defi ned as “an e xtr eme for m of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entand does noti ncl ude l es s erform s of cruel , i nhum an ordegr adi ng tr eatm entorpuni s hm ent . . . . ” 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 18( a) ( 2) . T he I J concl uded thatFor kpabi o di d notm eethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn t o L i ber i a, 8 C . F. R . §§ 1208. 16, 1208. 18, and w e conc l ude that the r ecor d does notcompel a di ffe r entconcl us i on. Fi nal l y , t o t he ext entthatFor kpa- bi o ar gues thathe i s el i gi bl e fora w ai verof in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (h ) o r f o rm e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (c ), h e f a iled to exhaus tthes e i s s ues befor e the I J oron appea l t o the B oar d, and thus w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthes e cl ai m s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ; Z heng v. G onzal es , 422 F. 3d 98, 1 0 7 -08 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.