NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0247n.06 Filed: April 1, 2009 No. 08-3758 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

TETYAN A D OV HOP OLAand VOLODIMIR DOVHOP OLYY, P e ti ti one r s,

v. M IC HA EL B. M UK

ASE Y, AT TOR

NE Y G EN ER AL , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE ON APPEALFROM THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO NA P P E A LS

BEFORE: MERRITT, GRIF F IN, and KETHL EDGE, Circ uit Jud ges MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Tetyana Dovhopola, as lead petitioner, on behalf of herse lf and he r husband, a s “derivative” pe titioner, seeks revie w of the final order of remova l issued by the B oard of

Immigration Appeals, which affirme d the i mmigration judge ’s denial of the pe titions fo r a sylum , w ithho ldi ngof re mov a l, and pr ote c tio n un de r t he Un ite d N atio ns Conve nti on Ag a ins t Tortu r e . T h e y ar e n ati v e s o f th e U kr a in e an d c la im a s ylum o n gr o un d s th at th e y h av e suffe red perse cution beca

use they are Ba ptist. As to the asylum issue, there is a question of whether w e lac k subject matter jurisdiction due to the untimeliness of the petition, and the withholding of remova l questions are whether

petitioner has m ad e t he re quisite showing of “cle ar pr obability” of f

utureNo. 08-3758

Dovhopola v. M

ukasey

-2- perse cution under the Immigration Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), or the “likelihood of torture ” under the U. N. Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e , im ple me nte d b y re gulatio n is su e d b y the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1). We conc lude that the asylum petition i s untimely and that petitioner ha s

no t ot he rw ise ma de the re qu isi te sh ow ingfo r w ithho ldi ngof re mov a l. I. As ylu mApp lic at ion Unt im e ly T h e Imm igr ati o nan d

N atu r a liz ati o nA c t r e qu ir e s th at a na s ylum a

p p li c ant “ d e mo n s tr ate [] by c le ar and c onvin c ing e vid e nc e that the a pp lic atio n h a s b e e n f

ile d w ith in o ne ye ar a ft e r t he date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( B) . This require ment is subject to exceptions in cases whe n “the a lien demonstrates to the satisfac tion of the Attorney Gene ral e ither the exist ence of cha

ng ed circumstance s which materially aff ect the applicant’ s elig ibilit y for a sylum

or extraordinary

circ umstances r elatingto the delay in filing a n application within “the r equire d oneyear period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( D). Another subsection of § 1158 conver ts the limi tations issue into a j u ri s d i ct i onal issue: “[n] o court shall have jurisdiction to review a ny deter mination of the Attorney Gene ral” reg ardingwhether chang ed or e x t ra o rd i n ary circ umstances e x ist to ex cuse a n application for

asylum that is filed later than one year afte r entry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (3). The Immigration J udg e found that petitioner enter ed the United S tates on J anuar y 24, 2000, and filed he r application on May 25, 2001, four months outside the statutory period (A

pp. 27), and petitioner does not contr overt this finding(B rief p. 9)

. T h e j u d ge al so found that petitioner’s just i fi ca t i o n for the late filing— ignor ance of the lawtoge ther with hea dache s and depr ession — did not constitute a valid basis for ex tending the l imitations . Petitioner does not cite ca ses or otherNo. 08-3758

Dovhopola v. M

ukasey

T h e J u dg e f

ou n d a s f

ol l ow s w i t h r e s pe c t t o t h e r e l i g i ou s c l a i m: 1

B a se d o n the S ta te D e p a rtm e n t’s P ro fil e a n d In te rn a tio n a l R e ligio u s F re e d o m R e p o rt, I find tha t co n d iti o n s h a v e c h a n g e d to su c h a n e x te n t t h a t t h e re sp o n d e n t no lo n g e r h a s a w e llf o und ed f ear of p ers ecut i o n i f

s he were t o ret urn t o U krai ne t o d ay. T he Int ernat i o nal R el i gi o us Fr ee dom Repor t f

or U k r ai n e f

or t h e y ea r 2006 i n di ca t es t h at t h e 1996 c on s t i t u t i on a n d t h e 1991 la w o n fre e d o m o f co n sc ie n c e p ro v id e fo r fre e d o m o f re ligio n a n d tha t t h e go v e rn m e n t ge n e ra lly -3- valid rea sons for re versingthe judg e’s de cision. We, there fore , lack jurisdiction to revie w the denia l

on the gro un d o f u

nti me lin e ss o f t

he pe tit ion e r’ s a

pp lic atio n f

or a sylum

. II. Withh oldin g of Rem oval The B oard of

Immigration Appeals reviewed and t hen dis missed petitioner’s appeal on the fo llo wi nggro un ds : The re spondent, who testified be fore the Immigration J udg e via videoc onf e r e n c e, has filed with this Boar d a 15-pag e appellate brief wher ein she offe rs a g ener al discussion of asylum casela

w, incorr ectly

indicates that the Immigration J udg e fo u n d t hat her te sti mony “ la c ke d e mot ion ,” and

g e ne ra lly argue s that the Immi gra tio n Judg e wo uld have found her credible if he had considere d “the obstac les cre ated by tele-vide o and th e u s e o f a tr an s lator.” See Resp on de nt’ s B ri e f at 14 -1 5. Th e re sp on de nt a lso g ener ally alleg es that her

testimony

was c onsistent with her asylum application and other e vidence of re cord. Id . The re spondent has failed to offer a ny meaning ful argument showingthat the adve rse credibility findingon which her application wa s denied was clea

rly err oneous. Thus, we are unpersua ded of the actua l me rits of her appea l. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)( 3)(i). A ccor dingly , the appe al is dismis sed. (App. 2.) We h ave re vie we d p e tit ion e r’ s b ri e f b e fo re the B IA a nd fi nd that th e B IA h a s c or

re c tly described the brie f. It offer s the Boa rd no basis for reve rsal. The first five pag es si mply state a brief version of the s ame facts that the Immigration J udg e found to be reje cted on c redibility grounds as

u n t i m el y , inconsistent, lackingin corrobor ation and in conf lict with St ate Department Country Reports for the Ukra ine and its I n t ern at i o n al Relig ious Fre edom Report for the Ukra ine of 2006. 1No. 08-3758

Dovhopola v. M

ukasey

re sp e c te d this rig h t i n p ra c tice . T h e re p o rt sta te s tha t re ligio u s g ro u p s o f all b e liefs flo u rish e d in U kr ai ne. T he r eport s t at es t hat gove r nment pol i cy cont i nu ed t o cont r i but e t o t he gen er al l y f r ee p ract i ce o f

rel i gi o n. T he repo rt f

urt her i nd i cat es t hat P rotes t ant churches have grow n rapi d l y i n t he yea r si nc e ind ep en d en ce , an d i t st ates that t he E va ng eli ca l B ap t i st U nio n o f U kra i ne (t he B ap t i st U n io n ), w a s the lar g e st gr o u p , cla im ing m o re tha n 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 m e m b e rs in m o re tha n 3 ,0 0 0 c h u rc h e s. T h e r epor t f

u r t h er s t at es t h at t h e g ov er n men t g en er al l y s ou g h t a t a l l l ev el s t o pr ot ec t f r ee dom of r el i gi on an d di d not t ol er at e i t s abus e, ei t her by gove r nment al or pri vat e a ct ors . T he r eport f ur t her ind ic a te s tha t t h e re w e re se v e ra l i m p ro v e m e n ts in the las t yea r in re sp e c t f o r re ligio u s fre e d o m in U krai ne. T hus i n co ncl usi o n, al t ho ugh I d o not d o ub t t hat t here co nt i nue t o be oc casi o nal and unf o rt unat e i nst ances of harass m ent and dis cri m i nat i o n on t he b asi s o f one ’ s rel i gi o n, i ncl ud i ng t he B a p tist re ligio n in U k ra ine , I d o no t b e liev e the re c o rd o f ev id e n c e a s a w h o le sh o w s tha t t h e re is any reasonab l e f

ear of p ers ecut i o n f

o r B ap t i st s such as t he res p o nd ent i n U krai ne t o d ay. O n t he cont r ar y , I bel i eve t hat t he r ecor d of ev i dence , i ncl udi ng t he St at e D epar t ment r eport s , i ndi cat e t hat i f t here ever was p ast pe rs ecut i o n of t he res p o nd ent on ac co unt of her r el i gi o n, t hat t here are cert ai nl y t o d ay, i n earl y 20 0 7 , changed co unt ry co nd i t i o ns i n t hat co unt ry , whi ch wo ul d rebut any pr es u mpt i on c r ea t ed by s u ch pa s t pe r s ec u t i on , e v en i f i t h ad occ u r r ed. (A p p . 2 1 & 2 2 .) -4- The ne x t seven pa g es cite va rious immigration cases a nd rote hornbook principles of immigr ation law without an ef

fort to apply the cases and principles to the facts of the case at hand. The nexttwo pag es complain g ener ally about the tele- video method for the conduct of the hearing. The brie f wa s not responsive to the requireme nts of the BIA for appea ls, and we find no err or i n the B IA’s ground of dis mis sa l. For th e fo re go i ngrea sons, we deny Dovhopola’s pe tition s eekingrevie w of the B oard’ s denial of he r application for asy lum and withholding of r emoval under the Immigration and Natura liz ation Act and the Convention Ag ainst Torture.