FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 30 , 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. 06- 11787 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN os . A 97- 926- 807 A 97- 136- 798 V E V I N E P E T R O N A F R A N C I S , O W E N L L O Y D F R A N C I S , J E V R O N F R A N C I 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 30, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Be causethe petitio n er s did not argue that the B IA er red in denying CAT relief, the 1 petitioners haveabandone d this argument. S ee Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 V e v in e P e tr o n aF r a n c is , h e rh u s b a n d , a n d h e rs o n ( c o lle c tiv e ly “p e titio n e r s ” ) , a ll n a tiv e s a n d c itiz e n s o f J a m a ic a , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , p e titio n th is C ou rtfor r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l ’ s ( “ B IA ”) fi nal order di s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l a nd a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct ( “ I N A ” ) . T he pe t i t i one r s a r gue tha tthe yf i l e d the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on m or e tha n a y e a ra f te rth e y a rr iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s b e c au s e th e yd id n o t k n o w th e yc o u ld appl y f ora s y l um . T he pe t i t i one r s a l s o a r gue tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n de ny i ng w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l b e c au s e th e yf e a rth e yw ill b e p e r s e c u te d if r e tu rn e d to Jam ai ca . 1 I . Ju r i s d i c t i on O ve r P e t i t i on f or R e vi e w of

A s y l u m D e n i al W e r e vi e w ours 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 12 68 , 12 72 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A n al i en m ayappl y f or as yl um i f “ the al i en 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 wi th i n 1 y e a ra f

t e rth e d a t e o f

th e a l i e n ’ s a rr i v a l i n th e Un i t e dS t a t e s . ” I NA § 208( a ) ( 2) ( B ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . A n a l i e n m a yappl yf ora s y l um a f

t e rone ye arof arri val i f the al i en “ dem on stra t es . . . ei ther the exi st ence of changed 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 tyf ora s y l um or3

e x tr a o r d i n a ry c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l a t i n g t o th e d e l a yi n f i l i n g a n ap p l i c a t i o n . ” I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . “N o c o u rt s h a ll h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to rev i ew an y d et erm i n at i o n ” th atan ap p l i cat i o n w as u n t i m el y o r fai l ed t o est ab l i sh 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 th e d e la y . I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) . S e c t i on 1158( a ) ( 3) di ve s t s us of j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha ta n a s y l um appl i c a ntf i l e d a n unt i m e l yappl i c a t i on a nd 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 ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s to e x c u s e th e u n tim e ly f ilin g . M e n d o z av . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 . ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . H e r e , the B I A de t e rm i ne d tha tthe pe t i t i one r s f i l e d the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on m ore than o ne ye araf

t erthei r arr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es . T he B IA al so foun d that th e p e titio n e r s d id n o t p r o v e e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif y in g th e irla te f

ilin g . P ursuantt o IN A § 2 08 (a )( 3), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (3), w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B I A ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s unt i m e l y . H ow e ve r , w e do not l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e p e t i t i o n f o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l . T h e r e f

o r e , we di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the de ni a l of

a s y l um f

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on, but c o n tin u e w ith r e v ie w o f th e c la im f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. I I . W i t h h ol d i n g of

R e m oval 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 e xt e ntthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . “ I n s o f a ra s th e [ B I A] a d o p t s th e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g , we4

r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on a s w e l l . ” I d. H e r e , the B I A i s s ue d i t s ow n de c i s i on, w ith o u t a n y a d o p tio n . T h e r e f o r e , w e w ill r e v ie w o n lyth e B I A ’s d e c is io n .

“ T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, [ o u r ] r e v ie w is d e n o v o .” D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) . H ow e ve r , the B I A ’ s f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons a r e r e vi e w e d unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd w e “ m us ta f f i rm the . . . 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. ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 83 -84 (qu ot at i on om i tt ed). A n ap p l i c a n tf

o rw i th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l i s n o ts u b

j e c tt o th e o n e - y e a rt i me l i mi t a t i o n p l a c e d o n a s y l u m ap p l i c a n t s u n d e rI N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( b ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 4 ( a ) . Se e I N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) , 8 U . S. C. 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A) . Mo r e o v e r , u n l i k e a s y l u m , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA is m a n d a to ry , n o t d is c r e tio n a ry , o n c e th e ap p lic a n t e s tab lis h e s e lig ib ility . I d .; 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (d)( 1).

“ A n al i en i s e nt i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A i f s he can show thather ‘ l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened i n [that ] coun trybecause of her ra ce , re 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 opi ni on. ’ ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1232 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) ) . T h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f is upon the a l i e n t o s how he re l i gi bi l i tyf orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A by5

s how i ng tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n nots he w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon be i ng r e turne d t o he rc ountry . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . T he m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- not s ta n d a r d is m o r e s tr in g e n t th a n th e w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a rs ta n d a r d in a s y lu m c a s e s . T an v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 6 F . 3d 13 69 , 13 75 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A n ap p lic a n t f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l m a ys a tis f

yth is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f in o n e o f tw o w ays. Id . F i rst , an al i en m ay sat i sfy h er b u rd en i f sh e est ab l i sh es “ p ast p e r s e c u tio n in h e rc o u n try b a s e d o n ap r o te c te d g r o u n d .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . O nce an al i en es t abl i shes pastpers ec ut i on , “ a r ebutt abl e pre sum pt i on ar i se s that s he ha s aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, a nd the bur de n the n s hi f t s t o the [ D H S ] to s h o w th a t th e c o n d itio n s in th e c o u n tryh a v e c h a n g e d o rth e a lie n c o u ld avoi d a future threa tthrou gh re l ocat i on . ” I d. (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). S ec on d, i f an al i en has notshow n p as tpers ec ut i on , she s t i l l m aybe ent i t l ed t o w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l i f

s he “ e s t abl i s he s ‘ tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha ts he w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on upon r e m ova l t o tha tc ountry . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b) ( 2) ( a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) ) . “ A n a l i e n c a nnot dem on stra t e that[s he] m ore- l i kel y- than-no tw ou l d b e per se cut ed on a prot ec t ed g r o u n d if th e [ B I A ] f

in d s th a t th e a lie n c o u ld a v o id af u tu r e th r e a t b yr e lo c a tin g to a nothe rpa rtof

[ he r ] c ountry . ” M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A n a l i e n m a y a l s o s us t a i n he rbur de n of pr oof bys how i ng a6

pa tt e rn orpr a c t i c e of

pe r s e c ut i on of

agr oup s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d t o he ri n w hi c h s he i s i ncl ud ed or w i th w hi ch she i s i dent i fi ed. 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2). T he al i en need no tshow thatshe w ou l d b e s i ng l ed ou ti nd i vi du al l y f or pers ec ut i on ; ra ther, s he m a y s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof bys how i ng apa tt e rn orpr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on of agr oup s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d t o the a l i e n i n w hi c h s he i s i nc l ude d orw i th w hi c h s he m a y be i de nt i f

i e d. I d. N e i the rthe I N A northe r e gul a t i ons de f i ne “ pe r s e c ut i on. ” W e ha ve s t a t e d, ho w ever , that“ pers ec ut i on i s an extre m e c on ce pt , re qu i ri ng m ore than a few i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of

ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on, a nd . . . m e r e ha r a s s m e nt doe s nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. ” S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231 ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . F urthe rm or e , the pe t i t i one r ’ s w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe on ac coun tof, or becaus e of, on e of the st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct ors, such as her pol i t i c a l opi ni on. S e e I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 483, 112 S . C t . 812, 81 6, 11 7 L . E d. 2d 38 (199 2). W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ a ] n i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on, w he the rc orr e c t l yor i ncorrec t l y a ttri bu t ed, m ayconst i tut e agrou nd for aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof po l i t i ca l pe r s e c ut i on w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the I N A . ” A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1289 (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). A n app l i cant“ m ayprevai l on a theory of i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l opi ni on i f

he s how s tha tthe pe r s e c ut orf a l s e l ya ttr i but e d a n opi ni on t o hi m , a nd the n pe r s e c ut e d hi m be c aus e of tha tm i s t a ke n be l i e f

abouthi s vi e w s . ” I d.7

(a l t er at i on s and qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T o m ee tthei r burden o f proof, the pet i t i on er s m usthave show n ei ther that they s uffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on or thatthey m ore l i kel y than n otw ou l d suffe r f uture pe r s e c ut i on i f

r e m ove d t o J a m a i c a . S e e T a n, 446 F . 3d a t1375. W e f i nd no e rr or i n the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe pet i t i on er s di d n otsuff erpastpers ec ut i on base d on a prot ec t ed grou nd . S ee i d. T he threa t s the pet i t i on er s r ec ei ved w er e unrel at ed t o the i rpol i t i c a l opi ni ons a nd, a l though ha r a s s i ng, di d notr e a c h the l e ve l of p e r s e c u tio n . B e c au s e th e p e titio n e r s f a ile d to s h o w p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th e ya r e o n ly e l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l i f

the ypr ove d tha tthe ym or e l i ke l ytha n not w o u ld s u f

f e rp e r s e c u tio n u p o n r e m o v a l to J a m a ic a . S e e T a n , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 5 . T he pe t i t i one r s ha ve f

a i l e d t o m e e tthi s bur de n of pr oof a s w e l l . T he ydo not be l ong t o ape r s e c ut e d gr oup a nd pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha tthe yw oul d j oi n one up on re turn t o Jam ai ca . T here fore , subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s deni al o f w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. U po n revi ew of the re cords and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e hol d thatw e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e a s y lu m c la im an d d is m is s th e p e titio n a s to th a t is s u e . W e a l s o di s c e rn no e rr ori n the B I A ’ s de ni a l of w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd de ny the pet i t i on as t o thati ss ue. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T; D EN I ED I N PA R T.