FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 13, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1177 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A ge nc y N os. A 95- 899- 984 A 95- 899- 985 JOSE EDUARDO RUIZ, ISABEL GRACIELA AVILES DE RUIZ, VERONICA ESTHER RUIZ, FRENANDA RUIZ, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- (F eb ru ar y 13 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Ruiz i ncluded his wife and childre n as der ivatives in his asylum application; so our decision 1 about Ruiz also applies to them. 2 Jose Eduardo Ruiz, his wife I sabel de Ruiz, and their m inor children V er oni ca and F er nandaRu iz , na tiv es and c iti ze ns o f Pe ru , pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof 1 the a ff irm an ce by

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( “ BI A ”) of the de ci sio n of

the Im m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”)
. T he de ci sio n de nie d a sy lum , w ith hol din g of r em ova l,
an d r el ie f unde r the U nit ed N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, In hum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”)
. N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e dis m iss the pe tit ionin part and d en y it in part . We f i rs tm u s td et er m i n e t o wh at ex t en twe h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v erRu i z’s petition
. Chacon-Botero v. U. S. Attorney Ge n., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11t h Cir. 2005 ) (w e ar e “ obl igate d to inquir e int o su bj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n su a spon te whenever it m ay be lacking”). O n appeal, R uiz argues that he dem onstrated ch an ge d c ir cum stanc es to ex cu se his unt im el y a sy lum appl ic at ionand o the rw ise
m ak es arg um en ts a

bout his e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum
. B ut w e do n ot h av e j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r Ru iz ’ s a sy lum c la im s be ca

use the I J and the BI A c onc lud ed that hi s
as y lum appl ic at ionw as unt im el y and that he f

ai le d to de m onstrate an e xc ep tio n to the f ili ng d ea dli ne c ont ai ne d in8 U
. S. C. § 11 58( a) (2 )( B)
. C ha co n- Bo te ro , 427Even if we did have jurisdiction over Ruiz ’s CAT re lief cla im, he has wa ived appe llate re view 2 of it by mere ly citing the rele vant law a

nd makingonly

a g ener alized alleg ation of er ror. See B ay

ro v. Ren o , 1 4 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 7 7 , 1 3 7 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th at w h e n a p arty f a il s to a ddress an argument in their brief

, they have a bandoned it and w aived their rig ht to judicial review of it). In his asylum application, Ruiz indicated that he soug ht relief ba sed on his political opinion. But 3 at his asy lum hearing , Ruiz clar ified that he sought relief ba sed only on his membership in a particula r social group. 3 F. 3 dat 9 5 7 (w e l ac kju ri s d i ct i o n , u n d ers ec t i o n 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ), t o re v i ew an IJ ’s tim eliness ruling ). Ruiz also argues that the IJ err ed in deny ing hi m CA T r elief. But we lack j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r thi s c la im be ca use Ru iz did

not r ai se it in his appe al to the BIA ; so he has not exhausted his adm inistrative rem edies on this claim
. 8 U. S. C. § 125 2(d)(1) ( we “ m ay

reviewa final order

of rem oval onl y

if .
. . the a lien has exhausted all adm inistrative rem edies available to the alien as of right”); Am ay a-A rtunduag a v. U. S. Attorney Ge n., 463 F.3d 1247 , 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006 ) (w e la ck

j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wac la im une xhaust ed

be fo re the BI A , e ve n if the BI A ha s su a spon te a ddr es se d it ). A cc or din gly , w e dis m iss the pe tit ionf or 2
rev ie w of c la im s fo r as y lu m an d C AT reli ef. So , w e ha ve j ur isd ic tio n ov er Ru iz ’ s pe tit ionf

or r ev ie wonl y

of ac la im f or
w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. R

uiz sou ght

r el ie f ba se d onhis m em

be rs hip in a particular social group -- those who w ouldspeak out against the corrupt activities of f orm er gov er nm en t of fi ci al V la dim ir o M ont es ino s and h is c ohor ts. Mo nte sin os 34

wa s the form er hea d of Per u’ s intellig ence agency

and assistant to form er pr es ide nt A lbe rt o F uj im or i. T he r ec or d in dic at es that, in 1998 and 1 999, Ru iz
re ce ive d de ath th re at s onse ve ra l oc ca sio ns f ro m his e m plo y er s L uis , A lbe rt o, and W ilf re do V en er o ( “ the V en er o br oth er s” ) - - w ho w er e co usi ns and a lle ge d c ohor ts of Mo nte sin os - - ba se d onRu iz ’ s im pli catio n inac or

ru pti on i nve sti ga tio n of

the ir
com pany about go vernm ent contracts. During the investig ation, the V enero br oth er s f or ce d R uiz to te sti fy

- - by thr eat of de ath and h ar

m to his f am ily in ad dit ionto phy sic al a ssa

ult - - in a c er ta in w ay to gove rn m en t of

fi ci al s. B oththe
co m pa ny andRu iz ev en tu al ly w ere e xo ne rat edat t he en d o f 19 99
. Ru iz a lso c la im ed

to be am em

be r of the pol iti ca l party

of the n- pr es ide nt Fu j im or i and tha t, ba se d onhis pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s inF uj im or i’ s 20 00 r e- el ec tio n
cam pa ign , he f

eare d r ep ri sa l f

ro m Mo nte sin os. R ec or ds s ubm itt ed by Ru iz ind ic at e that M ont es ino s is in pr iso n be ca use of se ve ra l su spe ct ed

c or ru pt activities, but com

m ands his suppo rters f

rom prison in an eff

ort to prevent m ore anti-corruption in vestigatio ns. Ruiz indicated the he fe ared r eturning to Per u be cau se of t he Vene ro bro th ers an d M on te si no s an d h is m afi a. T he I J de nie d R

uiz w ith hol din g of

r em ova l be ca

use the m istre atm en t he suffere d was not on account of an enum erate d ground , but instead was the product of a pr iv at e b us in es s m at te r in vo lv in g p os si bl e ex to rti on . In h is ap pe al to th e BIA,5

Ru iz a sse rt ed

that he w as part

of apart ic ular soc ia l gr oup of “ m enthr eate ne d by Vladim iro Montesino s, participating in social activities desig ned to better the lives of oth er sim ilarl y sit ua te d in div idu al s. ” T he BI A r ej ec te d th is the or y , c onc lud ing that R uiz ha d no t pr ovi de d e vid en ce of a ct ivi tie s de sig ne d to be tte r the li ve s of oth er s and tha t the thr eats h e re ce ive d f ro m the V en er o br oth er s w er e not on
ac co unt of Ru iz ’ s a sso ci at ionw ithapart ic ular soc ia l gr oup or pol iti ca l op ini on, b u ti n s t ea db ec au s e o f a s i n g l e c o rrup t i o n i n v es t i g at i o n o f t h e V en er o b ro t h er s ’s
co m pa ny. W e re vie wthe de ci sio ns o f the I J and the BI A in thi s c as e. S ee A l N aj j ar v. As h cr o ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n g th at we re v i ew th e B IA ’s de ci sio n; b ut “ [i ] nsof

ar a s th e [B IA ] a dopt s th e IJ ’ s r ea soni ng, w e w ill r ev ie wthe IJ ’ s de ci sio n a s w el l” ). A n I J’ s f ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is une nti tle d to
re lie f “ m ust be uph el d if

it is supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . ” Ma zari eg os v . U.S . At t o rn ey Ge n ., 2 4 1 F. 3 d1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ). “ To re v er s e t h e I J ’s fa ct f ind ing s, w e m

ust f ind that the r ec or d no t on ly

sup ports r ev er sa l, but

c om pe ls it.” Mendoza v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). A n a lie n se ek ing w ith hol din g of r em ova l m

ust sho wthat hi s li fe or

f re ed om
w oul d m or e lik el y

than no t be thr eate ne d up on r et ur n to his c ountry

be ca use of his
race , r eligion , nationality , political opinio n, or m em bership in a particular socialRuiz also asser ts that he suffe red pe rsec ution based on his m em b ership in group of “ persons 4 whose immutable ideolog ica l an ti-corr uption beliefs place them in dang er of those who may

be prosec uted as a

result o f i ng raine d beliefs.” To the extent that Ruiz is now assertinga new social g roup, we ar e without jurisdiction t o consider it bec ause he did not raise it befor e the B IA. See Amaya, 463 F .3d at 1250-51. 6 gr oup. I d; s ee a lso 8 U
. S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ). A n a lie n be ar s th e bur de n of de m onstratin g th at

he m or e- lik el y -than- not

w oul d be pe rs ec ute d or

tor tur ed upo n hi s re tu rn to th e co un try in q ue st io n. Me nd oz a, 32 7 F .3dat 1 28 7. Inhis br ie f, Ru iz c ite s th e re le vant l awf or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and states that he has establish ed eligibili ty for r elief under controlling caselaw based on h is m em

be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup. Bu t he doe s no t sh owhowthe 4
m istreatm ent he rec eived wa s on account of his alleged m em bership in an oppo sit iongr oup to M ont es ino s or howthe c ondu ct

c om pla ine d of

w as not m er el y about a private busin ess m atter and po ssibl e extortion. While Ruiz fear s reprisal from Montesino s if he re turns to Peru, nothing in the rec ord evidences that he ever dir ec tly w as thr eate ne d by

Mo nte sin os o r that R

uiz w oul d be sin gle d ou t by him uponr et ur n to P er u. S ee S ep ulv ed a v. U
. S. A tto rn ey G en . , 401 F
. 3d 1 226, 123 1 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ The a

pplicant m

ust also establi sh a causal connection between the [ statut or

y f ac tor ] and the f

eare d pe rs ec uti on, pr es en tin g sp ec if ic , de ta ile d f

ac ts show ing agoo d r ea son to f ear that he or

she w ill be sin gle d ou t f

or pe rs ec uti on o n
ac co unt of suc h [ a fa ct or ]
. ”) ( int er

na l qu otatio n om itt ed ). H e al so p ro vid ed no7

evidence of a c onnection betwee n Montesin os and the inv estigation of the V enero br oth er s’ s c om

pany oth er than hi s own c onc lus or

y te sti m ony . I n a ddi tio n, nothin g
ev ide nc es that the e xto rt ionand thr eats b y the V en er o br oth er s w er e on a cc ount of Ru iz ’ s op posi tio n to Mo nte sin os. T he re fo re , be ca use the e vid en ce doe s no t
co m pe l us to co nc lud e that R uiz is en tit le d to r el ie f, w e de ny his pe tit ionf

or
rev ie w of h is cla im

forwit hh ol di ng of r em ov al
. PETITION DISMIS SED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.