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 AUGUST 29, 2005 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 04- 1433 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N o. A 29- 892- 018 FL ORENCE CH IN YE RE NN AN I, Petitioner,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie w of

a n O rd er of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 29, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Florence C hiny ere Nnani, a native and citizen of Nigeria , petitions this Court for re view of the Board o f Imm igration Appeals’ (“ BIA ’ s”) dism issal of her appeal from the im m igration judge’ s (“ IJ’ s”) decisi o n deny ing her request for re lief underThe I J also denied he r re quest for w ithholding of de portation under Immigration and 1 Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) § 243(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h), but Nna ni doe s not c halleng e this findingon appea l. Accor dingly , we tre at any claims as to I

NA re lief as wa ived. See Rowe v. Schr eiber , 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (issues not argued on appe al ar e dee med waive d). 2 the U nit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O th er Cru el, I nhum an e or D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t (“ CA T ”) , 8 C. F. R. §§ 208. 16- 18. A ft er c ar ef ul 1

re vie w , w e dis m iss he r pe tit ionin pa rt , f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n, a nd d en y

it in pa rt
. T he r el ev an t f

ac ts are the se . Af

te r ane vid en tiary

he ar ing on N na ni’ s pe tit ion for w ithho lding of rem oval, pursuant to th e IN A, and request for CAT relief , the I J
co nc lud ed

tha t N na ni was no t eli gib le f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l be ca

use she pr ev iou sly

w as co nvi ct ed of a dr

ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse inv olv ing alarg e quanti ty of dr ugs (1 17. 6 gr am s of m ar ij ua na an d 8. 9 gr am s of he ro in) ; sh e did

not play a“ m er el y peripheral” r ole in the offense; and the drugs were kept in a hous e w ith Nnani’ s three

sm al l c hil dr en . T hus, the I J c onc lud ed N na ni h ad

not pr es en te d a“ ra se c as e
ex ce pti on, ” w ith in the m ea nin g of I n r e Y -L , A -G , R- S- R, 23 I& N D ec . 270, 276 -7 7 (A.G. 20 02 ), m eri ti ng wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al de sp it e h er p rio r co nv ic ti on . A s f or CA T r el ie f, N na ni’ s c la im w as ba se d on a fe ar

of r et al ia tio n by

he r inla w s f or te sti m ony

she ga ve dur ing he r br oth er -i n- la w ’ s tr ia l f or dr ug tra ff ic kin g a nd

a fe ar tha t he r daught er s w oul d be c ir cu m ci se d if r et ur ne d to N ige ri a. T he I J f

ound that Nnani had not satisfied th e “ m ore likely th an not” standard for CA T r eliefPrior to the enactment of the REALI D Act, our jurisdiction over this case was g overne d 2 by the transitional rules fo r judicial revie w set out in I I RI RA § 309(c) (4), whic h applied to final order s issued after

October 31, 1996, in c ases that wer e begun befor e April 1, 1997. See Al Na jjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1276 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 106(d) of the REAL

I D Act pr ovides the fol l o wi n g: “A petition for r eview f iled under f

ormer se ction 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (as in eff

ect before its repe al by

[I I RI RA §] 306(b), shall be treated as if it had be en filed as a petition for re view under section 242 of the [I

NA] . . ., as amende d by

this section . . . .” 3 because s he d i d no ts ho w t ha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l y t han no tt ha ts he w ou l d be s uf fer tortu re, on beh al f of

the gov er

nm en t, if r em ove d to N ige ri a. T he BI A , in tur n, concluded th at the IJ p ro p erlyfound Nnani ineligib le for w ithho lding of rem oval unde r the I N A or

CA T r el ie f. T his appe al f oll ow ed

. Pu r s u a n t t o t h e R E A L I D A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , H
. R
. 1 2 6 8 1 0 9 t h C o n g . , P ub. L
. N o. 109- 13, D iv. B, 119 St at . 231 ( “ RE A L I D A ct ”) , e na ct ed on M ay 11, 200 5, thi s Co urt’ s j ur isd ic tio n ove r the ins ta nt p et iti on i s go ve rn ed by the pe rm an en t r

ule s f or j udicial review, IN A § 242, 8 U .S .C. § 1252 (a) (established bythe Illegal Im m ig rat io n R efo rm an d Im m ig ran t Resp on si bi li ty A ct of 1 99 6 (“ IIRI RA”), Pu b. L. N o. 104 -2 08, D iv. C, 110 S ta t. 300 9) , w hic h be cam e effe ct ive Apr il 1, 199 7. T he 2 RE A L I D A ct

f urthe r pr ovi de s tha t its am en dm en ts to § 1252 “ sha ll ta ke ef fe ct upo n the date of the enactm ent of this division and shall a pply to c ases in which the final adm ini str at ive or de r of

r em ova l, de porta tio n, or ex cl usi on wa s issue d bef or e, on, or after the date of the enac tm ent of this div ision .” RE AL ID Ac t § 106(b), 119 Stat. at 31 1. Thu s, t he am en dm en ts ap pl y to Nnan i’s ca se .See also Foreig n Affa irs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“F ARRA”), P ub. L . No. 3 105-277 § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998), reprinted in 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note; Ba logun v. A shcrof t, 270 F.3d 274, 279 ( 5th Cir. 2001) (holding that, under I NA § 242(a )(2) (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)( C), appellate courts ar e bar

red f rom exercising jurisdiction over cla ims for CAT relief , wher e the petitioner is an a li e n w h o is r e mo v a b le f o r h av in g c o mm itte d an e nu me r a te d o f f e n s e ) ; D ia

k it e v. I NS, 17 9 F .3 d 5 53 , 5 54 (7 th C ir . 1 99 9) (h old ingthat ne ith e r C AT no r F ARRA g ra nts a pp e llate courts jurisdiction over claims for CAT relief , and, there fore , the jurisdiction-stripping provision of I NA § 10 6( a )( 10 ), 8 U. S.C. § 11 05 a (a )( 10 ), the pr e c ur so r t o I I RI RA § 3 09 (c )( 4) (G ), a pp lie s to lim it appellate -cour

t jurisdiction over such cla ims). 4 O ur j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w d e n i a l s o f C A T r e l i e f

a r i s e s o n l y

f r o m o ur j ur isd ic tio n ov er

f ina l or de rs of

r em ova l. S ee 8 C
. F. R. § 20 8. 18( e) (1 ) (“ [T ] he re sha ll be no jud ic ia l ap pe al or rev ie w o f an y act io n, de ci si on , or c la im rai se d u nd er [C AT]

. . . , except as p art of the review of a final order

of rem oval.”). A ccordingly , w here 3

w e la ck juri sd ic tio n to r ev ie w af ina l or de r of

r em ova l, w e al so are ba rr ed f ro m considering any decisions with regard to C AT relief that we re incident to that rem oval

or de r. A ft er e na ctm en t of

the RE A L I D A ct , r ev ie w of N nani’ s pe tit ionc ont inu es to be gov er ne d by 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52( a) (2 )( C) , w hic h pr ohi bit s the ap pe lla te c ourts f ro m
re vie w ing “ an y

f ina l or de r of

r em ova l a ga ins t an ali en w ho i s r em ova ble by r ea son of ha vin g co m

m itt ed a cr im ina l of

fe nse , ” as de fi ne d by , int er al ia , 8 U .S.C. § 1227 (a)( 2)(B) (controlled subs tance offe nses). How ever, the RE AL ID Ac t am ended § 125 2(a)( 2) to repeal the j urisd i ct i o n al bar insofar a s it affe cts “ constitu tional claim s” or “ questio ns of l aw .” RE AL ID Ac t § 106(a)(1)(A )(iii) ( codified at 8 U. S. C.Be fore en actment of the REAL

I D Act, it was w ell-settled in this Circuit that, despite § 4 1252(a) (2)( C)’s jurisdictional bar, w e re tained jurisdiction to review“substantial co n s t i tutional claims.” Chuangv. U.S. A tt’y Gen., 382 F.3d 1299, 1303 ( 11th Cir. 2004); Balogun v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 304 F .3d 1303, 1305 (11th Cir. 2002) (“ [E] ven if § 1 2 5 2 (a) (2)( C) applies, appe llate re view of [a r e mov a l] or de r m ay sti ll be a pp ro pr iate if [the pe tit ion e r] r a ise s a ‘s ub sta nti a l c on sti tut ion a l’ challeng e to his removal.” ); Br ooks v. Ashcrof t, 283 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 2002); Og uejiofor v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 277 F .3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). 5 § 1 25 2( A)(2 )(D)) (a m en di ng 8 U.S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 b y ad di ng a ne w pro vi si on , § 1252 (a )( 2) (D ), a s f

oll ow s: “ Judi ci al Re vie w of Certa in L eg al Cl ai m s - N oth ing in subp ar ag ra

ph ( B) or ( C) , or in an y oth er pr ovi sio n of

thi s A ct ( oth er than th is s ec tio n)

w hic h li m its or

e lim ina te s j udi ci al r ev ie w , sha ll be c onstru ed a s pr ec lud ing r ev ie w of

co nst itu tio na l cl ai m s or que sti ons of la w ra ise d upon a pe tit ionf or r ev ie w f ile d w ith an appropriate cou rt o f app eals in accordance with this section.” (e m phasis add ed)). 4 In t hi s a ppe al , N nani c ha lle nge s th e pr oba tiv e va lue of c er ta in e xhi bit s considered by

the IJ at the evidentiary

hearing and argues, am ong o ther things , that the I J e rr e d b y p l a c i n g t o o m u c h w e i g h t o n N n a n i ’ s o w n t e s t i m o n y a n d not f ull y considering the U. S. De partm ent of State’ s 2004 Country Report on Nigeria

and an In te rn at ion al Fam ily Pl an nin g Pe rs pe ct ive s Re port en tit le d “ Ri te of Pa ssag e Or Violation of Rights.” Again, in order for us to have jurisdiction to review the denial of Nnan i’s p et it io n fo r CAT rel ie f , h e r p e t it io n fo r rev ie w m us t i nv ol ve on e o f two types of iss ue s: ( 1) c onst itu tio na l c la im s, or ( 2) que sti ons of

law . I d. T o th e ex te nt she c ha lle nge s f

ac tua l f ind ing s or

c re dib ility

de te rm ina tio ns, m ad e at the6

adm inistrative level by

the IJ, or the IJ’s ruling s on adm issib ility and probative value,

w e do n ot h av e j ur isd ic tio n to gr an t r ev ie w a nd dis m iss he r ap pe al as to tho se iss ue s. A s f or N na ni’ s r em ai nin g a rg um en ts, w hic h c onc er n th e suf fic ienc y of the evidence to supp ort her CA T c laim , w e ar e satisfied t h at s u b s t antial evidence supp orts the I J’ s de nia l of CA T r el ie f an d w e dis ce rnnothi ng th at woul d c om pe l a reasonable fac tfinder to conclude that Nnani w ould be tortured by som eone acting “ at the instig atio n of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other pe rs on a ct ing in an of

fi ci al ca pa ci ty
. ” 8 C. F. R. § 20 8. 18( a) (1 ). Mo re ove r, a s f ound by the I J, N na ni f

ai le d to de m onstra te a“ w el l f ound ed f ear” of f uture pe rs ec uti on upon return to Niger ia, and it thu s follows that Nnani failed to sh ow th at i t wa s m ore l i k e l y t h a n n o t

s h e w o u l d b e t o rtu r e d o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o t e c t e d f a c t o r . Ac c o r d i n g l y,
w e can f ind no l eg al e rr or in the de nia l of CA T re lie f an d de ny N na ni’ s pe tit ion as to the le ga l i ssu es he r pe tit ionr ai se s. PE TITION DISM ISSED IN P AR T A ND DE NIED IN P AR T.