FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 00 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -5 51 -7 25 MELANIE MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mel an ie Marg ari taRo dr ig ue z, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Ve ne zu el a, pe ti ti on sfo r rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) ord er af firm in g the de ni al of h er ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n andNati on al ity Act, an d re li ef und er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Aga in stTortur e an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um anor De gr ad in g Tre atm en t o r Puni sh m en t (“ CAT”). Ro dr ig ue z cl ai m s tha t s he wil l b e p ers ecu te d i f sh e returns to Vene zu el a on acco un t o f he r em

pl oym en t wi th anorg an iz at io n, Ce nt ro Int eram eri can o d e Geren ci a Po li ti ca, wh os e m is si on is to pro m ot e d em oc racy thr ou gh ou t Lat in Am eri ca, i nc lu di ng inVene zu el a, an d b ecau se sh e rec en tl y st art eda pe rs on al bl og th atis op po se d t o the Vene zu el ango ve rn m en t. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t, u nl es s the BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Ru iz v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). In tha t ca se , we rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l. Id . Here, th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s d eci si on , and , th eref or e, we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . See i d. As an in it ia l m at te r, Ro dr ig ue z h as no t ch al le ng edth e BIA’s ad ve rs ecred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n o r it s co nc lu si on th atRo dr ig ue z was in el ig ib le for withh ol di ng un de r CAT. Becau se sh e fai le d t o ra is e th os e is su es inhe r pe ti ti on be fo re u s, we d eem

th em ab an do ne d andne edno t fu rth er ad dr es s the m . See Si ng h v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 61 F.3d12 75 , 12 78 -7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Add it io na ll y , we 2la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the BIA’s de te rm in at io n tha t h er as y lu m ap pl ic at io n was un ti m el y

fil ed . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(3 ); F ah im v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 2 78 F.3d 12 16 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (h ol di ng th atfed eral co urts do no t h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e Att orne y

Gene ral ’s dec is io n re ga rd in g the ti m el in es s o f anasylum ap pl ic at io n) . Thu s, the on ly iss ue be fo re u s i s the BIA’s al te rn at iv e d et erm in at io n th at , no twi th st an di ng he r la ckof c red ib il ity , Rod rig ue z fai le d t o d em on st rat e th at itis m or e li ke ly than n otth athe r li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edinVene zu el a on acco un t o f he r po li ti cal act iv it ie s, the refo re d en y in g h er re qu es t fo r withh ol di ng of rem ov al . 1 Upo n re vi ew of

th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d the reco rd , we see no rev ers ib le erro r inth e BIA’s d eci si on th atRo dr ig ue z fai le d t o m eethe r bu rd enof p ro of for withh ol di ng of r em ov al . The BI A di d n oterr wh enitup he ldth e Imm ig rat io n Ju dg e’s de ci si on to gi ve li tt le weig htto th e il le gi bl e, un cert ifi edtra ns la ti on s o f web pa ge s tha t Ro dr ig ue z subm it te d a s the reg ul at io ns pro vi de th atfor ei gn lang ua ge do cu m en ts m

us t b e le gi bl e an d a cco m

pa ni edby a certi fic at io n fr om th e To qualify

for withholdingof re moval under the I NA, the a pplicant must show that if 1 returne d to her c ountry , her “ life or f ree dom would be threa

tened in that countr

y beca use of [her] rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial group, or political opinion.” I NA § 241(b)( 3)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)( A). The petitioner must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be per secute d or torture d upon remova l to her country . Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F .3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). 3tra ns lato r as to co m pe te nc y an d a ccu racy. See 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .33 . Mor eo ve r, subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in gs th atno on e in Vene zu el a was aware of R odrig ue z’s po li ti cal act iv it ie s o r wou ldsee k t o h arm he r. 2 PETI TI ON DENI ED.

To the extent that Rodrigue z faults her prior tria l counsel for any defic iencies in he r 2 immigration court proce eding s and attempts to raise a n ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim, we lac k jurisdiction to consider this issue as it has not been a dministratively exhausted. See Amaya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1249-51 (11th Cir. 2006).

4