FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ug. 28, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 14950 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 88- 244- 345 & A 88- 244- 346 L E I D Y S M E R C E D E S V A L E R A M A R T I N E Z , G A B R I E L E D U A R D O D A M A L I S V A L E R A , D A N I E L E D U A R D O D A M A L I S V A L E R A , 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 28, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L e id y s M e r c e d e s V a le r aM a r tin e z a n d h e rs o n s , D a n ie l E d u a r d o D a m a lis2

V al er a a nd G abri el E du ar do D am al i s V al er a ( here i naft ercol l ec t i vel y “ M art i nez” ), pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) fi nal order
a f f i rmi n g th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e n i a l o f h e rc l a i ms f

o ra s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T or tur e 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 ( “ C A T ” ) . A f

t e rr e vi e w , w e di s m i s s i n pa r ta nd de ny i n pa r tM a r t i ne z ’ s pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. M a r tin e z a n d h e rs o n s , n a tiv e s a n d c itiz e n s o f V e n e z u e la , a rr iv e d in M ia m i, F lo r id ao n N o v e m b e r1 1 , 2 0 0 4 a s n o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito r s a u th o r iz e d to s ta y u n til A ugus t21, 2005. I n J a nua ry 2007, M a r t i ne z f i l e d a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on c l a i m i ng s h e w a s p e r s e c u te d in V e n e z u e lab a s e d o n h e rp o litic a l o p in io n a n d m e m b e r s h ip in a part i cul arsoci al grou p. T he D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty c harged M art i nez a nd he rs ons w i th r e m ovabi l i ty f orr e m a i ni ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be y ond the autho ri ze d p er i od , i n v i ol at i on of the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) § 2 37 (a )( 1)(B ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ). F o l l o w i n g a h eari n g atw h i ch M art i n ez t est i fi ed an d co n ced ed rem o v ab i l i ty, the I J de ni e d a l l r e que s t e d r e l i e f . T he I J c onc l ude d tha tM a r t i ne z ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s unt i m e l y . F ur the r , the I J f ound M a r t i ne z ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s not cr edi bl e, gave no w ei gh tt o a l ett erfr om her V enez uel an nei gh bo r bec ause i tw as t o o v a g u e a n d g e n e r a l , a n d c o n c l u d e d th a tM a r t i n e z w a s i n e l i g i b l e f o ra s y l u m,We reviewonly the B IA’s dec ision ex cept to the e x tent the B IA expressly adopts the 1 IJ ’s opinion or rea soning. A l Najjar v. A shcrof t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the B IA issued its own opinion upholdi ngthe IJ ’s adverse credibility deter mination and the untimeliness of Martinez’s asylum application and re jectingthe re st of her a

ppeal. Thus, we review only

the B IA’s dec ision. W e review leg al issues de novo. Mohammed v. A shcrof t, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 ( 11th Cir. 2001). The B IA’s factual finding s arereviewed under the substantial evidenc e test. Al Na

jjar, 257 F .3d at 1283. Under the substantial evidenc e test, “w e must find that the re cord not only

supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 3 w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and C A T re l i ef . T he B I A di s m i s s e d M a r t i ne z ’ s appe a l , not i ng s he ha d a r gue d onl y tha ts he
s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a nd ha d aw e l l
- f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on a nd ha d notc ha l l e nge d e i the rthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng orthe unt i m e l i ne s s of he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. T he B I A c onc l ude d tha tM a r t i ne z ’ s f a i l ur e t o c ha l l e nge th es e b as es fo r th e I J’s d en ial o f th e a p p li ca ti o n m ea n t th er e w as n o er ro r in th e I J’s d e c i s i o n . Ma r t i n e z f

i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 1 T o the e xt e ntM a r t i ne z c ha l l e nge s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew thi s c l ai m because M art i nez di d n otexhausti ti n h er appeal t o the B IA . S ee IN A § 2 42 (d)( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)(1); A m ay aA r tu n d u a g av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 0
- 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . L i kew i se , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew M art i nez’ s new l y- ra i se d cl ai m thather du e proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed by the IJ ’ s a l l eged bi as . S ee A m ay a- A rtun du aga, 4 6 3 F . 3 d at1 2 5 1 . T h u s, w e d i sm i ss M art i n ez’ s p et i t i o n as t o th ese cl ai m s. A s t o M art i nez’ s c l ai m s f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and C A T re l i ef ,An alien is entitled to withholding of removal if she c an show that her life or fre edom 2 would bethre atene d o n ac c ount o f a prote c te d groun d. I

NA § 2 41 (b )( 3) (A), 8 U .S. C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) ; Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. The alien be ars the burden to show either that she suffered pa st persecution or that she has a well-founde d fea

r of f uture persecution. Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (1)- (2). To beelig ible for CAT relief, a n alien must prove that she morelikely than not would be torture d if retur ned to the countr

y in question. Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F .3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2). O na p p e al , M arti n e zd o e s n o tc h al l en g eth ed en i alo f h er a s ylump e ti ti o na s unti m e ly. 3 There fore , we do not address this claim further . See Mendoza, 327 F .3d at 1286 n.3. 4 subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s dec i si on . W hi l e the 20 06 U ni t ed S t at es 2 C ountry R e por ton V e ne z ue l ai ndi c a t e s tha ts om e pr ot e s t or s a ga i ns tthe V e ne z ue l a n gove rnm e ntha ve be e n ha rm e d by s e c ur i ty f or c e s dur i ng d e mo n s tr a t i o n s , th e o n l y e v i d e n c e th a tM a r t i n e z p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e s e p r o t e s t s c a me fr om her di sc re di t ed t es t i m on y. A l ett erfr om her nei gh bo r s t at ed i n con cl usory f a s h io n th a t th e n e ig h b o rh a d “p e r s o n a lly w itn e s s e d th e p e r s e c u tio n a n d m u ltip le th r e a ts ” M a r tin e z w a s s u b je c te d to “b y p e r s o n s u n k n o w n , f o r c in g [ M a r tin e z ] to
c ha nge hous e s w i th a l l he rf a m i l y . ” T he l e tt e rdi d notpr ovi de a ny de t a i l s of the p e r s e c u tio n o rth r e a ts o rid e n tif y w h o m a d e th e th r e a ts o rth e r e a s o n s f o rth e m . T he nei gh bo r’ s l ett erand the 20 06 C ou ntryR eportdo no tcom pel a c on cl usi on that M a r t i ne z pe r s ona l l y s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on orha s aw e l l
- f ounde d f e a rof pers ec ut i on shou l d she re turn t o V enez uel a or thatshe i s e nt i t l ed t o C A T re l i ef . 3 PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.