NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 09 a0825n .06 09- 3009 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
ABD OU LAY E TRA OR E, Pet itione r, v. ER IC H . H OLD ER, J R. , U nit ed St ates Atto rney General, Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION F ORR EVIE W FROM A FINAL ORDER OF T HE BOAR D OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: DAUGHT REY, C OLE , and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges.
PER C UR IA M. After ini ti all y fleei ng to Bur ki na F aso from his home i n C ote d ’I v oire, pet it io n e r A b d o u la ye T ra o re e n t e re d t h e Un it e d S t a t e s wit h o u ta u t h o ri za t io n . He event ually soug ht as y lum, wit h h o ldi ng of re mov al, and protecti on unde r the U nit ed N ati ons Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re , req uest s t hat were ei ther dismi ss ed or de nie d on the mer it s by an i mmig ra ti on j udg e and by the Board of Immig ra ti on App eal s ( BIA)

. Traore now chal len g es thos e adv erse deter minat ion s. W e find no meri t t o the peti ti oner ’s co ntent ion s and den y

hi s peti ti on for

rev iew , based in par

t on the meri ts and i n par t due to our

l ack of jurisdiction to rev iew

certain de term inatio ns. In hi s a sy lum appl ic ati on and in o ra l te st imonybefore an i mmig ra ti on j udg e, pet itione r T raore ex plaine d tha t he was a citiz en o f Cote d’Ivoire, a me mb er of the Dioula09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 2 - t ri b e , a n d a su p p o rt e r, b u tn o ta m e m b e r, o f t h e RD R ( Re p u b li c a n De m o c ra t icRa ll y) p a rt y. Accordin g to T raore, o n Sep tem ber 24 , 200 2, app rox ima tely 30 a rmed soldiers ent ered his home w here he w as sl eepi ng w it h his brother , his si ste r, and his mother

. The sol die rsbeat the brothe rs and sister w ith the ir rifle s and w arne d the fam ily to cease supp orting the RDR par ty and it s l eader , Al ass ane O uatta ra , hi msel f a Di oul a tr ibe member

. Traore tes ti fied that he was then hitw it h a r ifle unti l he fell to the floor unc onsc iou s. W hen he re g ain ed conscio usne ss, he foun d him self tied to a tree w ith severe bruises an d oth er injuries to his legs.
T he followi ng day, the fam ily f led th eir hom elan d for Burkina Faso w here Trao re’s mo the r, brothe r, and siste r still resided a t the time o f the ad min istrativ e he ar in g in this ma tter. Af

ter the petitio ner ha d resided in B urkina Faso for 20 m ont hs, ho w ever, becau se he had ex per ien ced difficul ty f ind ing employ ment in t hat c ountr y , and bec ause he had been forced to keep hi s Iv or ian heri tag e secret for fear of ret ri buti on, h e l eft Bur ki na F aso and flew to the U nit ed St ates , ent er ing N ew Y or k t hroug h us e of a forg ed pas spor t.
On N ov ember

15, 2004, Traore fil ed an appl ic ati on for asy lum. Al thoug h the peti ti oner

i ndi cat ed on one pag e of that appli cat ion that he had entered the Unit ed St ates on Ma y 31, 2003, the remaind er of the a ppl ic ati on menti oned M ay 31, 2004, as the d ate of entry into th is count ry . To f urthe r comp licate m atte rs, at an earlier app eara nce b efore another i mmig ra ti on j udg e, Traore’s co unsel “ admit [ted]

. . . [t hat Traore] en tered the Uni ted Stat es on Ma y 31st , 2003 in New Y or k.” Ac cordin g to re present ati ons made by the09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 3 - gov ernm ent ’s ow n coun sel in the m atte r, howev er, “the original [app lication] w ith the initials of the as y lum off ic er

w ho had the i nter

v iew

. . . [c ontai ned] a few

ch ang es that the a sy lum of f icer ind icated t he respo nde nt ma de during t he interview

. O ne of t hem was with respect to th e dat e in w hich he ma de it ‘0 4 instea d of ‘0 3.” Moreover, throughou t the ev iden tiary hea ring cond ucte d by the imm igration judge w ho decide d this ma tter, T raore con sistent ly ma intain ed th at he had e n t e re d t h e Un ited St ate s at the end of May 200 4, less tha n six months before fili ng hi s a sy lum appl ic ati on. Nev erthel ess , t he i mmig ra ti on jud g e conc lud ed th at Traore had not “ demonst ra te[d] by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the a ppl ic ati on ha[ d] be en fil ed withi n 1 year after the d a t e o f

t h e alien’s arriv al in the Unite d Sta tes.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58(a )(2)(B). Con seq uentl y , t he i mmig ra ti on j udg e held t hat t he pet it ion er was precl uded fro m asy lum re li ef. Alter nati v ely , the immig ra ti on judg e concl uded that Traore fail ed to est abl is h ei ther th e pas t persec uti on or the w ell -founded fear of future persec uti on th at woul d j ust ify the dis creti onar

y re li ef s oug ht. The admini strati v e cour t als o deni ed the peti ti oner w it hhol din g of remo v al and relief

und er the Convention Against Torture

. T he BIA agreed that T raore’s asylum app lication was time-ba rred and thatthe petition er oth erw ise failed to esta blish his eli g ibi li ty for o ther

reli ef. Trao re then ti mely fil ed hi s p eti ti on for re v iew w it h thi s c our

t.
W hen rev iew ing the BIA’ s r uli ng , we must sus tai n the a dmini strati v e det er minat ion if thatruling is “supp orted by reaso nab le, sub stan tial, an d prob ative ev iden ce on the reco rd consid ered as a w hole .” INS v . Eli as-Zacar ias , 502 U.S. 478 , 481 (1992 ). “ Unde r this09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 4 - d e fe re n t ia l s t a n d a rd , we m a y n o tre ve rs e t h e B o a rd ’s d e t e rm in a t io n si m p ly b e c a u s e we would have decid ed the matte r d if feren tly .” Koliada v. INS , 259 F.3d 48 2, 48 6 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) (ci ti n g Mikhailevitch v. INS , 146 F.3d 38 4, 38 8 (6th Cir. 199 8)). Rather, to o v erturn fa ct u a l d e t e rm in a t io n s “w e m u s tf in d t h a tt h e e vid e n c e n o to n ly suppo rt s [ a co n t ra ry]
conc lus ion , but compelsit.” El ias -Zacar

ias , 502 U .S. at 48 1 n.1

. In ad dress ing the peti ti oner ’s as y lum cl aim, the immi g ra ti on j udge conc lud ed th at Traore fail ed to adduc e c lea r and conv inc ing ev ide nce that he ent ered th e U nit ed St ates dur ing the one- y ear

per iod pri or

to the f il ing of

his asy lum appl ic ati on. Con seq uentl y , t he immi g ra ti on j udg e and BIA hel d the as ylum cl aim ti me-ba rred. See8 U.S.C. § 1158( a) (2 )( B) ( ali en i nel ig ibl e for a sylum “u nle ss the ali en demons trates by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the appl ic ati on has been fil ed w it hin 1 year after the date of the ali en’ s a rr iv al in the U nit ed St ates ”)

. Al thoug h we find thi s a dmini strati v e det er minat ion cl ear ly er ro neous and unsup por ted by the re cord w hen v iewed as a w hol e, t he prov is ion s o f 8 U. S. C. § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ) d e n y ju ris d ict io n to an y cou rtto revie w su ch a t im e lin e ss rul in g. (“ No cour

t s hal l hav e j ur is dicti on to rev iew any dete rmi nati on of the Atto rn ey Gene ra l under para graph (2).”)
Mo re ov er , t he pet it ion er cannot rely

on t he rele v ant s ect ion of the R EAL I D Act , 8 U. S.C . § 1252( a) (2 )( D) , w hic h prov ide s that “[ n]oth ing in any other prov is ion of t hisch apter

. . . w hic h l imi ts or

el imina te s jud ic ial rev iew , s hal l be c onst ru ed as precl udi ng rev iew of cons ti tu ti onal cl aims or q uest ion s o f law

rais ed upon a pe ti ti on for re v iew fil ed w it h an09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 5 - app ropriate court of

app eals . . . .” The petiti o n er’s challenge to the tim eliness deter minat ion rais es nei ther a c onst it uti onal i ss ue nor a q uest ion of

l aw . See A lmuht aseb
v . G onz ale s, 453 F .3d 7 43, 7 48 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. Even if w e w ere ab le to ad dress the merits of the asylum issue , howev er, w e cou ld not find that Traore is enti tl ed to the re li ef he seeks. For the peti ti oner to meri t a g ra nt of asy lum, he must demonstrate eit her thathe s uffered pas t persec uti on on acc ount of rac e, re li g ion , nat ion ali ty , membershi p i n a p arti cul ar so ci al g ro up, o r pol it ic al opi nio n, an d/or that he h as a w ell-foun ded fear of f utu re persecu tion b ased upo n on e of the pro tecte d grounds. Alt h o u gh t h e re le va n tst a t u t o ry p ro vis io n s d o n o td e f in e “p e rs e c u t io n , ” we h a ve co n s istent ly re cog niz ed th at “ w hil e ev en a si ng le beati ng offends one’ s s ense of ci v il iz ed g ov er nmental condu ct, a s ing le beati ng does not com pel a f inding of

persecu tion. ” Gi

laj v. Gonz ale s , 408 F. 3d 275, 284 (6t h C ir . 200 5) ; Mikhailevitch , 146 F .3d a t 390

. Nev erthel ess , we do not cat eg or ic all y

precl ude t he pos si bil ity thata si n gle act of v iol ence coul d be so br utal and int imi dati ng thata peti ti oner coul d est abl is h the persec uti on nec ess ar y to jus ti fy a g ra nt of asy lum. See, e.g. , Lum aj v. Gonz ale s , 462 F .3d 5 74, 5 77 ( 6th Ci r. 2006) (“ persec uti on c an be found on the b asi s o f only one inc ide nt, . .

. but a n i sol ated attac k mus t be of suff ic ien t severity to w arrant su ch a f in ding”). In th is case, ho w ever, Traore alleges only a single beati ng at the hands of the mi li tar y that , al thoug h c ertai nly unfort unate, does not ri se to t he lev el of those act ion s t hat we hav e prev iou sl y co nsi dered to consti tute persec uti on. See, e.g. , Pi lica v. Ashcro ft , 388 F .3d 9 41, 9 54 (6th Ci r. 2004) (no findi ng of persec uti on ev en thoug h pet it ion er

was tw ic e ar re ste d and detai ned for a week o n e a ch occ asi on and, on09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 6 - a t h i rd o c c a s i o n , “ w a s b e a t e n b y p o l i c e me n , re s u l t i n g i n h e a d i nj u r i e s a n d a w eek- lon g hosp italiz ation ”). Furthe rmore , he ha s of fered no evidence to show that his me re supp ort of, but not membersh ip in , a pol it ic al par ty w oul d sti ll , sev en y ears a fter t hat s ing le actof
v iol en c e, e ng en de r

t he p hys i c al ret r i bu ti on t ha t c ou l d c on s ti tu te “ pe rs ec ut i on ” i f Traore re tur ned t o C ote d ’I v oire. The peti ti oner

al so chal len g es the p ro pr iety of the d eni al of w it hhol din g of remov al by the imm igration judge and the BI A. Pursua nt to the pro v isions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231( b) (3 )(A) , “t he Atto rn ey General may not re mov e an ali en to a c ountr y i f the Attor ney Gen eral decid es tha t the alien’s life or free dom would b e threat ene d in tha t coun try becau se of the al ien ’s

. . . nati onal ity . . . or pol it ic al opi nio n.” Thus , to qu a lify for
w it hhol din g of re mov al, the peti ti oner “must est abl is h tha t t here i s a cl ear probabi li ty

that he wi ll be subject to persecutio n if forced to retu rn to th e cou ntry of remo v al.” Pilica , 388 F.3d at 951

. T o ma ke such a showing, a pet itione r “mu st dem onst rate tha t ‘it is mo re likely tha n no t’ thathe or she wi ll be persecu ted upo n r e t urn.” Lit i v. Gonz ale s , 411 F .3d 6 31, 641 (6th Cir. 2005 ) ( quoting 8 C.F.R. § 120 8.1 6(b)(2)). Such a r e qu ir e m entis “ a mo re st ri ngent b urde n tha n w hatis required on a claim for asyl um .” Id. at64 0 (quo ti n g Pilica , 388 F.3d at951 ). Ag ain , Traore has fail ed t o a d d u ce su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to es tabl is h s uch a “ cl ear probabi li ty ” of pers ecut ion in Cot e d’I v oire. As uncon sc ion abl e as the beati ng endured by the p eti ti oner

was, the factremains thatTrao re ’s cl aim for w it hhol din g of re mov al is bas ed09- 3009

Tr aor e v . Holder

- 7 - on th at s ing le inc ide nt t hat o cc ur re d more tha n s even ye a rsag o. He has offered no t e s t im o n y o r p ro o f

t h a ts im il a r re t ri b u t io n fo r m e re p a rt y su p p o rtis st il l p o s s ib le in h is n a t ive count ry , much less “more lik ely than not.” Becaus e the factual ev ide nce before u s d oes not com pel a re sul t c ontrar

y to that re ached by

the immi g ra ti on j udg e and the B IA, w e find
no mer itto the p eti ti oner ’s cl aim in thi s reg ard.
Fi nal ly , Traore pur por

ts to cont est the admini strati v e deni al of reli ef purs uant to t he United Nations Conv ent ion Ag ainst Tortu re. How ever, he fa iled to arg ue this issue in his appel lat e br ief and, therefore, w e deem t he i ss ue to hav e been w aiv ed. S e e , e. g. , McPher son v. Kel

sey, 125 F .3d 9 89, 9 95 ( 6th C ir . 199 7) ( “[ I]s su e s adv erted t o i n a perf unct oryman ner, un accom pan ied by some ef fort at de v elop ed a rg u m ent ation , are dee me d w aived.” ( Citation s omitt ed)).
For the re asonsdi sc ussed, w e c oncl ude t hat we are w it hout jur is dicti on to rev iew the admini strati v e dec is ion reg ardin g the ti meli ness of Traore’s as y lum appl ic ati on. Beca use the p eti ti oner ’s remaini ng ch allen ges are ei ther w it hout meri t or

hav e been
w aived, w e DENY T raore’s pe tition for rev iew in this mat ter.