FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MARCH 20, 2007 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. 06- 13506 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 78- 581- 998 G U S T A V O H E RN A N D O A R A N G 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 d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ar c h 20, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We do not add re ss Ara ng o’ s CAT c laim b e c a

us eArang o did not f

ully e xha us t hi s 1 administrative remedies by appealing the IJ ’s denial of his CAT claim to the BIA. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider his CAT claim on appe al. Camacho-Salinas v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 460 F.3d 1343, 1347, n.1 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 G ust avo H ernand o A rang o p et i t i on s thi s C ou rtfor r evi ew of the B IA ’ s f i nal or de ra f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s de ni a l of hi s c l a i m s f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e de nyA r a ngo’ s pe t i t i on.

1 I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A s y lum W e a r e “‘o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ’ ” Chac on- B ote r o v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 95 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). “ A n asy l um appl i ca t i on m ustbe ‘ 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 d. ( quot i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ) . “ T hi s one - y e a rf i l i ng pe r i od c om m e nc e s e i the ron the d a te o f th e a lie n ’s la s t a rr iv a l in th e U n ite dS ta te s o rA p r il 1 , 1 9 9 7 , w h ic h e v e ris l at er . ” Me ndoz a v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 2 7 F . 3 d1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . An un t i m el y app l i ca t i on “ m aybe consi dere d . . . i f the al i en dem on stra t es . . . ei ther th e e x isten ce o f c h an g ed circ u m stan ce s w h ich m ater iall y a ff ec t th e ap p li ca n t’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf

ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the de l a yi n f i l i ng a n ap p lic a tio n . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) .3

W e l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e A tt o rn ey G en eral ’ s t i m el i n ess de t e rm i na t i on be c aus e the s pe c i f i c s t a tut oryl a ngua ge of 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) d e m o n s tr a te s C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to b a rs u c h r e v ie w . Fahi m v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 278 F . 3d 1216, 1218 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . A f t e rthe pa s s a ge of

the R E A L I D A c tof

2005, w e a g a in r e c o g n iz e d § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) c o n tin u e s to d iv e s t th is “‘C o u rt o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w ad e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie dw ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it or es t abl i shed extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s thatw ou l d excuse hi s unt i m el y f i l i ng . ’ ” Ch a co n -B o tero , 42 7 F . 3d at95 7 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). B ec ause the IJconcl ud ed A rang o’ s a sy l um appl i ca t i on w as t i m e- barr ed and thatno extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s e xc us e d the unt i m e l i ne s s , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w hi s a s y l um c la im . B . W i thholdi ng of

R e m ov al W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl ytha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the ext entthati texpres sl y a do pt s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” R e y e s - Sanc hezv, U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T o th e e x ten t th e B IA ad o p ts th e I J’s r e a s o n in g , w e r e v ie w th e I J ’s r e a s o n in g a s w e ll. Sav our yv . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 449 F . 3d 1307, 1312 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s c a s e , the B I A e xpr e s s l ya dopt e d a nd a f f irm e d s o m e o f

th e I J ’s f

in d in g s a n da rtic u la te da d d itio n a l f in d in g s a s w e ll. T h u s , we wi l l r e v i e w th e d e c i s i o n s o f b o th th e I Ja n dth e B I A.4

W e rev i ew l eg al co n cl u si o n s de no vo . D -Muhum e d v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 388 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew fi nd i ng s of f ac tun der the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , w hi c h r e qui r e s us t o “ a f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s upport e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w ho l e. ” I

d. ( quot i ng A l N

a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 2 5 7 F .3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . U n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, th e r e c o r dm u s t n o t o n lys u p p o rt r e v e r s a l, it m u s t c o m p e l it. Fa h im , 278 F . 3d a t1218. T he I N A f

orbi ds the r e m ova l of

a n a l i e n f

r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s i f “ the a l i e n’ s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d . . . be c aus e of . . . r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . A n appl i c a ntm a ys how he i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l in tw o w a y s . T an v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 44 6 F . 3d 13 69 , 13 75 (11th C i r. 2006) . F i r s t , the appl i c a ntm a ye s t abl i s h he e xpe r i e nc e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on m o tiv a te d , a t le a s t in p a rt, b yap r o te c te dg r o u n d . Id . S e c o n d , h e m a ye s tab lis h it is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t h e w o u ldb e p e r s e c u te do n a c c o u n t o f th e p r o te c te dg r o u n d . I d. E i the rw a y , the appl i c a ntm us te s t abl i s h ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the p r o te c te d g r o u n d a n d th e f e a r e d p e r s e c u tio n , p r e s e n tin g “s p e c if ic , d e ta ile df

a c ts show i ng a goo d rea son t o fear thathe . . . w i l l be s i ngle d out f orpe r s e c ut i on on ac coun tof such an op i ni on . ” A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d a t1287 ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons5

o m itte d ) ; s e e al

s o 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2). “ Iti s notenou gh t o sho w that[he] w as orw i l l be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d due t o [ hi s ] r e f us a l t o c oope r a t e w i th the gu er i l l as . ” Sanc hezv . U ni te d State s A t t '

yG e n. , 3 9 2 F .3 d4 3 4 , 4 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir2 0 0 4 ) . E ven i f A rang o w as pers ec ut ed i n C ol om bi a, the evi dence does notcom pel the concl usi on the pers ec ut i on w as on ac coun tof hi s a ctual or i m pl i ed po l i t i ca l o p i n i o n . A ran g o d i d n o test ab l i sh a cau sal co n n ect i o n b etw een th e al l eg ed p ast p e r s e c u t i o n o rf

e a r e d f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n a n dh i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . Ar a n g o ’ s o wn appl i c a t i on a nd t e s t i m onyi ndi c a t e d the s hoot i ngs a nd othe rw r i tt e n thr e a t s di d not b eg in u n ti l h e q u itp ay in g th e F A R C ’s ex to rtio n d em an d s. T h is su p p o rts th e I J’s a n d B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n s th a t h e w a s ta r g e te db e c au s e h e r e f u s e dto c o o p e r a te w ith the F A R C bypa y i ng the i re xt ort i on de m a nds , w hi c h doe s notm e e tthe bur de n f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Sa nchez , 3 9 2 F .3 da t 4 3 8 .

I I . CONCL US I ON We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w w i th r e s p e c tt o th e a s y l u m a n dC AT c l a i ms , a n d d e n yi tw i th r e s p e c tt o th e w i th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l c l a i m. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.