A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

I NDR A P ANJ AI T AN,

P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9562 ( N o. A 97- 195- 877) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge, BROR BY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pet i t i onerI ndr a Panj ai t an, a ci t i zen of I ndones i a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a vi s i t orand fa i l ed t o departupon expi r at i on of hi s vi s a. I n r emoval p ro c e e d in g s h e c o n c e d e d re m o v a b lil ityb u t so u g h t as y lu m , res trictio n o n re m o v a l,T he B I A found thatther e w as no m eani ngful chal l enge on appeal r egar di ng 1 th e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f

r e l i e f u n d e rAr t i c l e I I I o f

t h e CA T. -2- an d reli ef

u n d er A rt icl e III of

the U n it ed N ati o n s C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). A n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (IJ ) d e n ied h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a s u n tim e ly b ec au se itw as fil ed o v er o n e y ea r fro m h is en tryinto the U n it ed S tat es. T h e IJ al s o found thatM r . Panj ai t an di d notqual i fyforei therof tw o exce pt i ons t o the o n e-y ea r t im e li m it

– fo r “c h an g ed circu m stan ce s” o r “e x tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s”– fo u n d in IN A § 2 0 8 (a)(2)(D ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ). T h e IJ deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons forr es tr i ct i on on r emoval and r el i ef unde rA r t i cl e I I I of the C A T forfai l ur e of pr oof. M r . Panj ai t an appe al ed t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , ar gui ng thatthe I J err ed i n deny i ng hi s as y l um appl i cat i on as unt i m el ybeca us e he ha d e sta b lish e d “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s.” H e a lso a rg u e d th a t th e IJ e rre d in ruli n g that h e h ad n o t ade q u atelyp rov en p ast p erse cu ti o n o r th at i t w as m o re l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s C hr i s t i an b e liefs. T h e B IA a d o p ted a n d a ffirm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n re g a rd in g h is a p p lica tio n s fo r a sy lu m a n d re stric tio n o n re m o v a l. 1 DI S CU S S I ON I n hi s pet i t i on t o t hi s C our t , M r . Panj ai t an r ai s es s i x poi nt s of err or : ( 1) t he I J and the B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el ybeca us e he qu al i fi ed fo r the “ch ang ed cir cum st ances” an d “ex traor dinaryci rcum st ances”-3-

ex ce p ti o n to the o n e-y ea r t im e li m it ; ( 2 ) th e B IA erred in affirm ing the IJ’s d eterm ination that M r. P anjai tan fail ed to p rov e p ast p erse cu ti o n b ec au se th e IJ fa il ed to m ak e su ch a d eterm ination ; ( 3 ) th e B IA erred in affirm ing the IJ’s d eterm ination that M r. P anjai tan fail ed to p rov e p ast p erse cu ti o n ; ( 4 ) th e B IA err ed i n aff

i r m i ng the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatM r . Panj ai t an fa i l ed t o pr ove thathe had a w el l - founded fearof futur e per s ecut i on; ( 5) the B I A err ed i n aff i r m i ng t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM r . Panj ai t an w as notel i gi bl e forr es tr i ct i on on r emoval u n d e r IN A § 2 4 1 (b )(3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 ); a n d (6 ) th e B IA e rre d in det erm i ni ng t hatM r . Panj ai t an had notchal l enged the I J ’ s deni al of pr ot ect i on un der A rt i cl e II I of the C A T on app eal t o the B IA . W e den yhis peti t i on becau se w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , beca us e ther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the B IA ’s d e n ial o f

re stric tio n o n re m o v a l, an d b e c a u se w e h a v e n o ju risd ictio n to revi ew a cl ai m regar ding rel i ef un der A rt i cl e II I of the C A T that w as not fi rs t p r e s e n t e d t o th e BI A. I . Scope and St andar d of R evi ew T he B I A i s s ued i t s deci s i on bya br i ef or derbya s i ngl e mem berof the B o a rd a ffir m in g a n d a d o p tin g th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( e ) ( 5 ) . We ther efor e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal or derof r emoval but“may cons ul tthe I J ’ s opi ni on t o the ext entthatthe B I A r el i ed upon ori ncorpor at ed i t . ” Sar rv. G onz al es , 4 7 4 F . 3 d 7 8 3 , 7 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).-4- W hen r evi ew i ng B I A deci s i ons , an appe l l at e courtm us tl ook to the rec o rd fo r ‘sub stan ti al ev iden ce ’ sup p o rt ing the a g en cy ’s d ec isi o n [.] O u r du tyis t o g u ara n tee tha t fac tual d eterm ination s are s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence co n side ri n g the re co rd a s a w h o le. A g en cyfin d ing s o f fac t are c o n c lu siv e u n les s th e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t an yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . W e do n o tw e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e o re v a l u a t e th e w i tn e s s e s ’ c r e d i b i l i ty. Id . a t 7 8 8 -8 9 (c ita tio n s , in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ).

I I . E s t abl i s hi ng E l i gi bi l i tyforA s y l um orR es tr i ct i on on R emoval A deport abl e al i en mays eek t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es by d e m o n stra tin g th a t h e q u a lifie s fo r o n e o r m o re o f th re e sta tu se s: as y l um under8 U . S. C . § 1158, w i thhol di ng of r emoval under 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( A ), o r r e lie f u n d e r t h e [ C A T ], s ee Pub. L . N o. 1 0 5 - 2 7 7 , § 2 2 4 2 , 1 1 2 S t a t . 2 6 8 1 , 2 6 8 1 - 8 2 2 - 2 3 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; 8 U. S . C. § 1231 ( not e) . T o qual i fyforas y l um , an al i en musts how thathe “has s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on orhas ‘ a w el l - founded fearof [f utur e] per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ’ ” Tul engkey v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (a ltera tio n in o r i g i n a l ) ( q u o t i n g 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) a n d c i t i n g 8 C. F . R. § 2 08 . 13 (a) ). T o q uali fyfor r estri ct i on on rem ov al , an ali en m ust demonstr at e thathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n [the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval ] beca us e of [ hi s ] r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ); s ee als o 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b ). Pr ot ect i on underthe C T A does notdepend on a s how i ng t hat m i s tr eatm entw oul d be bas ed on anypart i cul archar act er i s t i c ( e. g. r ace orpol i t i cal opi ni on) , butan al i en s eeki ng s uch r el i ef musts how th a t “it is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if r e mo v e d t o th e p r o p o s e d c o u n tryo f r e mo v a l . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). Id . at788.-5- I I I . D i s cus s i on A . M r . Panj ai t an’ s Poi nt s 1- 4: A s y l um U nder§ 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) , an al i en maynotappl yforas y l um “unl es s the al i en demonstr at es bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i cat i on has been f i l ed w ith in 1 y e a r a f

ter th e d a te o f

th e a lien ’s a rriv a l in th e U n ited S tate s.” T h e re is n o d isp u te th a t M r. P a njaita n d id n o t m e e t th is o n e -y e a r tim e lim it. H e a rg u e s in hi s fi r s tpoi nt , how ever , thathe metone of the exc ept i ons t o the t i m e l i m i tfound in § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). W e agr ee w i th the governm entthatthi s cour thas no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew this po int of

erro r. S ec ti o n § 1 1 5 8 (a)(3) sp ec ifi ca ll yinstructs tha t “[n ]o c o u rt s hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anydet erm i nat i on of the A t t orneyG ener al under p ara g rap h (2).” M r. P anjai tan p rese n ts no arg u m en t on h o w this co u rtm ayign o re su ch an ex p li citd ir ec ti v e. A lth o u g h , “[ w ]i th C o n g ress’ p assa g e o f th e R ea l I D A ct , w e now have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of law , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ),” M r. P a njaita n ’s a rg u m e n t to th e B IA th a t h is i nabi l i tyt o s peak Engl i s h and hi s unfami l i ar i tyw i th U ni t ed St at es ’ i m m i gr at i on law q u a lifie d a s a n “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e ,” is a “ c h a llen g e [ ] d ire c ted so lely atthe age ncy ’ s di s cr et i onaryand fa ctual det erm i nat i ons [and] r emai ns out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Fer r y v. G onz al es , 4 5 7 F . 3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 0 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Si nce w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew th e BI A’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tM r . P a nj a i t a n ’ s a s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n wa s u n t i me l y , we-6-

di s m i s s as m oothi s s econd, t hi r d, and fourth poi nt s w hi ch addr es s the gr ounds for g r a n t i n g a s y l u m. B. M r . P a nj a i t a n ’ s P o i n t5 : Re s tr i c t i o n o n Re mo v a l Un d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A) Sect i on 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) r eads i n per t i nentpart : “the A t t orneyG ener al m ay n o t r em o v e a n ali en to a c o u n tryif th e A tt o rne yG en era l dec ides that the a li en ’s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n thatcountrybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p in io n .” “ T h e re stric tio n sta tu te is sa tisfied b ya sh o w in g th a t itis m o re lik e ly than notthatthe al i en w oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on on one of the s peci fi ed gr ounds upon r eturni ng t o [hi s ] countryof or i gi n. ” Tul engkey , 425 F. 3d at1280 (qu o tat ion o m itted). “Itis th ere fo re m o re d em an d ing than the ‘w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar’ s t andar d appl i cabl e t o an as y l um cl ai m . ” E lzo u r v . A sh c ro ft , 378 F. 3d 1143, 1149 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e c o n s i s t e d m a i n l y o f M r . P a nj a i t a n ’ s t e s t i m o n y, w h ich th e IJ fo u n d to b e c re d ib le. M r. P a njaita n w a s b o rn in th e sm a ll, m o stly C hr i s t i an, I ndones i an vi l l age c al l ed Si pahut a. H e i s a Seventh D ayA dvent i s tand liv e d in S ip a h u ta u n til h e g ra d u a ted f ro m h ig h sc h o o l. D u rin g h is tim e in S i pah uta there w ere onl ya few i ncident s bet w een M usl i m s and C hri st i ans bec ause “[t ] her e w as no m aj oroppos i t i on [fr om ] the M us l i m s atthatt i m e. ” A dm i n. R . at 81.-7-

A ft erhi gh s chool he moved t o J akart a and gotm arr i ed. R el at i ons betw een M u slim s a n d C h ristia n s w e re still “re lativ e lyp e a c e f u l” d u rin g th e tim e h e liv e d in J a k a rt a . Id . I n 1979, M r . Panj ai t an bega n w or ki ng ata bank. H i s l i fe r emai ned p e a c e f u l fo r a p p ro x im a telyth e n e x t n in e y e a rs u n til “ g e n e ra l ch a n g e s s tar ted to happen i n 1998 w hen the s tudent s w ant ed a di ffe r entgovernm ent . ” Id . a t8 3 . At thatpoi nti n t i m e M r . Panj ai t an w as l i vi ng i n “B andal ampong” and “thi ngs change d and bec ame qui t e di s or gani zed. ” Id . M r . Panj ai t an t es t i fi ed that

“ [ p ]h y sic a llya c tu a llyn o th in g h a p p e n e d to m e , b u t in th a t p a rticu lar tim e in B andal ampong, t her e w er e a l otof M us l i m extr emi s t s w ho caus ed a l otof bus i nes s es t o go dow n and one of them w as m ybank. ” Id . at 8 4 . A c c o rd in g to M r . Panj ai t an, the r i s e i n M us l i m extr emi s m caus ed a l otof bus i nes s es t o fl ee the countryand the depa r tur e of thes e bus i nes s adver s el yaffect ed the banki ng i ndus trydue t o the l oans thats ubs equent l yw entunpai d. H e t ook a pens i on and r et i r ed i n Februaryof 2000. H e then l eftI ndones i a, arr i vi ng i n the U ni t ed St at es in D e c e m b e r o f

2 0 0 0 . T h e b a n k w a s ta k e n o v e r b y“ a c o n g lo m e ra te” a n d w a s s til l in o p e ra tio n a t th e tim e o f th e h e a ri n g . Id . at85. M r . Panj ai t an t es t i fi ed thatanotherr eas on forcomi ng t o the U ni t ed St at es w as thathe w as afr ai d thathi s s on “w oul dn’ tbe abl e t o go t o the uni ver s i ty . ” Id . N everthel es s , he l at ert es t i fi ed thatatthe t i m e of the hea r i ng hi s fami l ys t i l l l i ved i n I ndones i a, hi s ol des ts on w as 25 and had “j us tgr aduat ed r ece nt l yfr om the uni ver s i ty ” w i th a l aw degr ee, hi s s econd s on w as 23 and had “ al s o j us tgr aduat ed-8-

i n m anage m ent , ” and hi s t hi r d s on w as “i n fi r s tgr ade i n s eni orhi gh. ” Id . at 1 0 9 -1 0 . M r. P anjai tan testi fied that there w ere M u sli m ex tr em ist s in the are a w h ere h e liv e d a n d th a t “th e ysh o u t A llah A k b a r, all th e tim e a n d th e ytell p e o p le th a t if y ou ar e abl e t o ki l l a non- bel i ever , a per s on thatdoes notbel ong t o M us l i m s , then y ou w i l l go t o heave n and w hattheym ean i s . . . C hr i s t i ans . ” Id . a t 8 4 . M r. P a njaita n ’s te stim o n yw a s b a sic a llyth a t th e re w a s a rise in M u slim extr emi s m and thathe w as afr ai d thati f the extr emi s t s w er e abl e t o t ake ove rthe g o v e rn m e n t itw o u ld c a u se a lo t o f p ro b lem s fo r h is fa m ily . A s to sp e c ific i ns t ance s of per s ecut i on, he t es t i fi ed thata chur ch w as burntnearhi s hous e and th a t “ th e ys h o w a lo t o f [ p h y s ic a l p e rs e c u tio n b ye x tr e m is ts ] o n T V . Id . a t 8 8 . N o th in g e v e r h a p p e n e d to h im p h y sic a lly , b u t sto n e s h a d b e e n th ro w n a t a bui l di ng w her e he a nd otherchur ch mem ber s w er e hol di ng m eet i ngs . H e t es t i fi ed thatw hen the chur ch ce l ebr at ed C hr i s t i an hol i day s i thad t o be done qui et l yand underguar d bythe pol i ce. A ccor di ng t o M r . Panj ai t an, hi s chi l dr en had a tt i m es had ant i - C hr i s t i an i ns ul t s s hout ed atthem w hi l e comi ng hom e fr om s chool . B ut des pi t e hi s fea rhe admi t t ed that“i f I had t o go hom e, I actual l ythi nk t hatI ’ m not a s a f ra id a s I u se d to b e , b u t m ylife w o u ld b e d ifficu lt b e c a u se th e e c o n o m yis s t i l l verybad. ” Id . at97. H e al s o t es t i fi ed: I w o u ld sa yp h y sic a llyI’m n o t as a f ra id b e c a u se th e re a re w a y s to avoi d them, t o run aw ayfr om them, t o notconfr ontthem but m ent al l yi tw oul d be extr emel ydi ffi cul tbeca us e I w oul d beI n hi s s econd poi nt , M r . Panj ai t an compl ai ns t hatt he I J fai l ed t o m ake a n 2 a d e q u a t e fa c tu a l fi n d i n g a s t o w h e th e rh e s u ffe r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n . We r ecogni ze thateven though r es tr i ct i on on r emoval ( unl i ke as y l um ) m aynotbe gr ant ed s ol el yon the bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on, t hi s ar gum enthas s om e r el evanc e t o the I J ’ s deni al of r es tr i ct i on on r emoval s i nce “ [i ] f the appl i canti s det erm i ned (c o n tin u e d ...) -9- s urr ounded byM us l i m s and theyw oul d have thi s pr es s ur e on me, on m ybehavi or , s o thatw oul d be veryhar d. Id .

“ P e rse c u tio n is th e in flictio n o f su ffe rin g o r h a rm u p o n th o se w h o d iffe r (in r ace , r el i gi on, orpol i t i cal opi ni on) i n a w ayr egar ded as offe ns i ve, and r equi r es m or e than j us tr es tr i ct i ons ort hr eat s t o l i fe a nd l i berty . ” Tul engkey , 425 F. 3d at 1280 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . M r . Panj ai t an had the bur den of pr oof of s how i ng t hat it w a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted o n a c c o u n t o f h is C h ri sti an reli g ion if h e re turn ed to In d o n esia. T h e B IA ad o p ted th e IJ’s det erm i nat i on t hatM r . Panj ai t an had notm ethi s bur den of pr oof on hi s r es tr i ct i on o n re m o v a l cla im . W h ile th e e v id e n c e sh o w s s o m e h a ra ss m e n t an d th a t th e rise in M u sli m ex tr em ism h as c au sed incre ase d p rob lem s fo r C h ri sti an s, M r. P anjai tan’s fa m ilystill l iv e s in In d o n e sia a n d th e re w a s littl e e v id e n c e p re se n ted o f th e ir p e r s e c u t i o n . I n fa c t , h i s tw o o l d e s tc h i l d r e n h a d j u s tg r a d u a t e d f r o m u n i v e r s i ty, one w i th a l aw degr ee. C ons equent l y , w e hol d thatthe B I A ’ s deni al of r es tr i ct i on o n re m o v a l w a s s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e b e c a u se f ro m th is re c o rd it i s i m pos s i bl e t o s aythatal l r eas onabl e adj udi cat or s w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o th e c o n tr a r y. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 t o have s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n the pr opos ed countryof r emoval on acc ount of r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on, i ts hal l be pr es um ed thatthe appl i cant ’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n the futur e i n the countryof r emoval on the bas i s of the or i gi nal c la im .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( I) . N e v e rth e les s, e v e n if

w e c o n sid e re d th is a rg u m e n t p ro p e rlyra ise d a s to M r . Panj ai t an’ s deni al of r es tr i ct i on, i tw oul d be deni ed. Fi r s t , M r . Panj ai t an neverar gued t o the B I A t hatt he I J fai l ed t o m ake a fi ndi ng as t o pas tper s ecut i on. See A dm i n. R . at11 ( s how i ng thatM r . J ai t an’ s s econd i s s ue on appe al befor e the B I A w as “[w ] hethert he [I J ] err ed w hen he held thatw hi l e [Mr . P anj ai tan] has nots how n pas tpers ecut i on , he di d notfee l that[M r . Panj ai t an] m etthe hi gh b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g th a t itis m o re lik e ly[ th a n n o t] th a t h e w o u ld b e su bjec t to per s ecut i on ort or tur e. ” ( emphasi s added) ) . Second, M r . Panj ai t an has not di r ect ed us t o anyauthor i tys uppor t i ng a pr opos i t i on thati ti s r ever s i bl e err orfor an I J nott o m ake a s peci fi c fi ndi ng as t o pas tper s ecut i on w hen deny i ng an a p p lic a tio n fo r r e s tr ic tio n o n re m o v a l. -10- C. M r . P a nj a i t a n ’ s P o i n t6 . Re l i e f Un d e rAr t i c l e I I I o f

th e CA T In h is si x th p o int, M r. P anjai tan a rgu es th at he raised the issu e o f th e IJ’s d e n ial o f

re lief u n d e r A rticle III o f

th e C A T b e fo re th e B IA a n d th e B IA e rre d in no add res si ng his cl ai m of error . M r. P anjai t an argu es: I n hi s br i ef t o the B I A , couns el for[M r . Panj ai t an] w r i t es , “The Pet i t i onerbas ed hi s cl ai m t o as y l um on hi s ethni ci tyand r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on and conve nt i on agai ns tt or tur e. ” Thus bythi s w r i t t en sta tem e n t, [M r. P a njaita n ] h a s m a d e it cle a r to th e B IA th a t h e d id n o t w a iv e a n yc h a llen g e to th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t h e In d ra is i n e l i g i b l e fo rCA T. P e t. O p e n in g B r. at 1 7 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e sta tem e n t cite d b yM r. P a njaita n is f ro m th e s ta te m e n t o f

fa c ts in h is B IA b ri e f. T h is is n o t a re a s o n e d a rg u m e n t. “T he fa i l ure t o rai se an i ssue on a pp eal t o the B oard co nst i tutes fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o thatques t i on and depr i ves the C our tof-11-

A ppeal s of j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthe mat t er . ” Ak i n wu n mi v . I NS , 194 F. 3d 1340, 1 3 4 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); D e La C r uzv. Maur er , ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 970166, at*2 ( 10th C i r . A pr i l 3, 2007) (“[ W ]e h av e jurisdicti o n o n lyo v er tho se c lai m s tha t w ere p rese n ted to the B IA an d w ere p rop erlyap p ea led to this co u rt. . . . ”). CO NC L US I ON M r . P a nj a i t a n ’ s p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i s th e r e fo r e DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge