FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 27, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 89 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -0 99 -7 85 BALTAZAR RAMIREZ-RAM IREZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, ver su s U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 27 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pro se pe ti ti on er Ba lt azarRam ire z-Ra m ire z, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof

Gua te m al a o f Mayan d es cen t, s eek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA) o rd er af

firm in g t he immig rat io n ju dg e’s (IJ ) de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a); withh ol di ng of r em ov al , 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 ); a nd rel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , In hu m an , or Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (C AT), 8 C.F.R . § 2 08 .16 (c). W e d is m is s h is pe ti ti on inpa rt a ndde ny it i n p art . Ram ire z-Ra m ire z en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n J ul y 20 00 witho utbe in g adm it te d o r pa ro le d. In 20 08 , he f il edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of rem ov al , andCAT rel ie f ba se d upo n h is race an d m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gr oup, n am el y

th e Ma y a In di an s. At arem ov al he ari ng , Ram ire z-Ra m ire z te st ifi ed th atinGuat em al a in 19 99 he ha d b een be at enby fou r m enwho to ldhi m he sh ou ld di e an d t ha t “ al l M ay an s s ho ul d d is ap pe ar fro m Guat em al a.” Ram ire z-Ram ire z di d n otsee k m ed ic al att en ti on or c on ta ctth e p ol ic e aft er thi s i nc id en t, an d h e ex pe rie nc edno othe r pr ob le m s fr om th e ti m e o f th e at ta ckun ti l h e fl edGuat em al a se ve ral m on th s l at er. Ram ire z-Ra m ire z’s m ot he r, si st ers , andgra nd fathe r rem ai ne d i n Gu at em al a und is tu rb ed . Ram ire z-Ra m ire z ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adno t fil edhi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n s oo ne r be cau se he was u na ware o f th e o pp ortu ni ty.

2The IJ d en ie d re li ef fro m rem ov al , fin di ng th e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n u nt im el y an d t ha t the cir cu m st an ces di d n otex cu se it s t ard in es s. Th e IJfurth er fo un d t ha t Ram ire z-Ra m ire z h adno t s ho wn el ig ib il it y for withh ol di ng of r em ov al or C AT rel ie f ba se d o n t he si ng le is ol at edin ci de nt . The IJ no te d t ha t Ram ire z-Ra m ire z’s fam il y rem ai ne d i n Gu at em al a unh arm ed . On ap pe al to th e BIA, Ra m ire z-Ra m ire z ch al le ng edon ly the de ni al of as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . The BI A affi rm ed , fin di ng th e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n t im e-b arre d a ndth atRam ire z-Ra m ire z h adno t s ho wn tha t ci rcu m st an ces warran te d e xc us in g t he un ti m el y ap pl ic at io n. Th e BIA fu rth er fo un d tha t Ra mire z-Ra m ire z fai le d t o s ho w itwas m or e li ke ly than n othe wou ld be pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d i f he returne d t o Gu at em al a. Fi na ll y , th e BIA d et erm in edth atRam ire z-Ra m ire z h adno t s ho wn h e was en ti tl ed to CAT rel ie f. Thi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w fol lo wed . Ram ire z-Ra m ire z arg ue s tha t “ ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces ” ex cu se d t he un ti m el y fil in g o f hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n. Withres pe ctto hi s cl ai m for withh ol di ng of r em ov al , Ram ire z-Ra m ire z arg ue s tha t h e was pe rs ecu te d i n Gua te m al a b as edon hi s ra ce an d m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . 1 Ramirez-Ramirez did not challeng e the de nial of CAT re lief bef ore the BI A; there fore , 1 he has f ailed to exhaust the issue and we lack jurisdiction to revie w it even though the B IA addre ssed it sua sponte . Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y G en. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th Cir.

3A. Asy lu m

W e rev ie w ou r subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Gon za le z- Oro pe za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 32 1 F .3d13 31 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). An al ie n m ay ap pl y for as y lu m if h e “ de m on st rat es by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th atth e ap pl ic at io n ha s b eenfil edwithi n 1 y ear a fte r th e d at e o f th e al ie n’s arriv al inth e Uni te d St at es .” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (B). Anap pl ic at io n fi le d a fte r on e y ear m ay be co ns id eredif t he ali ensh ows “ ei th er the ex is te nc e o f ch an ge d c irc um st an ces whi chm at eri al ly affectth e ap pl ic an t’s el ig ib il ity forasylu m

or e xtrao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces rel at in g t o t he de la y infil in g a n app li cat io n wi th in th e p eri od sp eci fie d.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D). “ [N]o co urt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w any det erm in at io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral reg ard in g the ti m el in es s o f th e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n.” Ch ac on -Bot er o v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 42 7 F .3d95 4, 9 56 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Here, the BIA d et erm in edth atRam ire z-Ra m ire z’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n was ti m e-b arre d a ndth athe ha d n otde m on st rat edex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces to 2006). In any

event, Ramire z-Ramirez’s argument conce rningthe B IA’s denia l of his reque st for CAT relief

is lim ited to a passingref ere nce in his brief

. This is inadequate to ra ise his CAT claim bef ore this cour

t, and we c onclude he has aba ndoned it. Gree nbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989). Finally , Ramirez-Ramirez argues for the first time in his petiti on for r eview that he established e ligibility for withholdingof re moval based on a

pattern or

prac tice of pe rsec ution. Bec ause hedid not raise this arg ument befor e the BIA, he ha s failed to exhaust it and we lac k jurisdiction to consider it. Amaya- Artunduaga , 463 F.3d at 1250. 4ex cu se hi s u nt im el y fil in g. We lackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th atde te rm in at io n a nd acco rd in gl y

di sm is s R am ire z-Ra m ire z’s pe ti ti on forrev ie w with re sp ectto hi s as y lu m cla im . B. W it hh ol di ng of R em ov al Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ In so far a s the Bo ardad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, we rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.” Id. W e rev ie w leg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo , an d re vi ew “ adm in is tra ti ve factfin di ng s u nd er the hi gh ly defer en ti al subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t.” Rive ra v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 48 7 F .3d81 5, 8 20 (11 thCir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . W e m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s “ supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Si lv a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 8 F .3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on s om it te d) . To rev ers e a fac tu al fin di ng by the BIA, we m us t fi ndth at“ th e rec or d co m pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f actth atth e rec or d m ay

supp ort a c on trary co nc lu si on is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of the adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). To b e g ran te d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an a li enm us t s ho w th athi s l ife or free do m wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f hi s ra ce, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, 5m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen ., 39 2 F .3d43 4, 4 37 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Pers ecu ti on is an“ ex tre m e co nc ep t” requi rin g m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al in ti mid at io n andm in or ph y si cal ab us e. Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 47 , 13 53 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Whe n s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an “ al ie n b ears th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t h e m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on hi s re tu rnto th e co un try in que st io n.” Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The BIA fo un d tha t Ram ire z-Ra m ire z fai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g p as t p ers ecu ti on . W e ag ree. On e is ol at edin ci de ntalo ne do es no t ris e to th e “ ex tre m e co nc ep t” of p ers ecu ti on . Furt he rm or e, Ram ire z-Ram ire z h as no t s ho wn tha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d i f he returne d to Guat em al a. Ram ire z-Ra mire z ex pe rie nc edno pro bl em s b etweenth e ti m e o f th e in ci de ntan d h is fli gh t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s s ev eral m on th s l at er. Nei th er h e n orhi s fam il y rece iv edth reat s af

te r Ram ire z-Ra m ire z le ft Gu at em al a, an d h is fam il y m em be rs who rem ai n i n Gu at em al a h av e n ev er b een ha rm ed . Se e Rui z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (co ns id eri ng lac k o f ha rm to al ie n’s fam il y

who rem ai n i n t he ali en ’s cou ntry ). On the se fact s, we co nc lu de th e reco rddo es no t co m

pe l re ve rs al of t he BIA’s or de r affi rm in g t he de ni al of withh ol di ng of r em ov al . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART AND DENIE D IN PART. 6