The H onorab le Sarah E v ans Barker, ofthe Un it ed Stat es  Dis t ri c tCour tf or th e So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2717 V ALE NTIN A S E NO VB ITSI N , P etitio ner, v . E RICH . H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 088-188- 257

A RGUED J AN UA RY 22, 2013

— D ECIDED M AY 31, 2013

Befo re R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg es , an d B ARKER, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. Val en ti n A seno v Bi tsin, a nati ve an d c i t i z e n o fBu l g a r i a , p e t i t i o ns f o r r e v i e w o fa n o rder2 N o. 12

- 2717

H e previousl y had com e t o the U nit ed Stat es i n both 2003 1 an d 200 4, also on v isitor v isas. A
. R
. at 128. 2 o fthe Bo ar d o fI m m i g r at ion A ppea l s ( “BI A”) de ny i ng h im as yl um , withhol ding ofr em ova land re l i efunder th e Con ve nt i o n Aga i ns t To r tu re (“CAT”)
. F o r the re aso ns se t for th i n thi s o pini on, w e d ism i ss the pet i ti on i n partand deny i t in part
.
I

B AC KGR OUND A . Facts M r. Bi tsin l astente re d the Un i ted S tat es i n M ay 2005 as a vi si tor, autho ri zed to s tayunti lOctobe r 2005
. 1 Befo r e hi s vi sa e xpi r ed, M r . Bi ts i n de ci ded th athe woul d l i k e to r emai n in the Uni te d S tates to pur su e fu rt h er ed u c at ion atSole x C olle ge in C h ica go , Illino is. In Aug us t 2 0 0 5 , the r e f o r e , he s ub mi t t e d a n a pp l i c a t i on f or a s tudent vi sa; he was as si ste d i n h is ap p li cati on byan attor ney, wh om the col l ege had sugg est ed. M r. Bi ts in w as advi sed thathi s ap p li cati on co uld t ake betw een si x m onths and one y ear t o proce ss. A ccor ding to M r. B its i n ’s t es tim on y a t h is re m ov al h ea rin g, it w as h is u n d er st an d in g th at h e w ou ld b e “allo w ed to j u st s t a y ,” but not to w or k, w hi l e the i m m i gr ati on a u th or i ti es w ere p rocess ing his ap p li cation
. O n ce h is pap ers w ere 2 filed , M r. Bi tsin att em pted to conta ct the at torney b y te l eph o ne t o c he ckthe s ta tu s o f hi s appl i ca ti o n, b ut“ [ t] heN o. 12

- 2717 3

Id. 3 Id. at 133. 4 tel ephone was out ofse rv i ce. ” H e la te r w ent t o the a t- 3 torney ’ s o ffi ce i n pe r so n o nl y t o di sc o ve r tha t th e offi ce had been cl ose d. I n 200 7, he was ar re ste d by i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es and place d in r em ova lpro ceedi ngs.

B. Ad m i nist r at i ve Proc eedi ngs 1. I n r e mo v a lp r o c e e di n g s , Mr
. B i t s i n a p p l i e d f o r a s y l u m, wi thho l di ngof re m o va la nd r el i efunde r the CAT. Du ring the hea ring, M r. Bi tsin tes ti fi ed that hi s f ather w as A sen Bi tsin, a re ti re d m i litaryo ffi ceri n Bulga ri a. Aft e r r e t i r i n g, h e b e g a n h i s o wn p r i v a t e s e c ur i t y c o mpany. M r. Bi tsin furtherst ate d that hi s f atherwas qui te s ucc es sful an d tha t th i s su cc es s th r ea te ne d the bu sine ss i nt er es ts o fa n o r g an i ze d c r i m e sy ndi ca te r un by the “ Gale v Bro thers,” w h o al so w er e in the busi ness ofpro vi ding secur i ty ser vi ces. 4 I n 200 0, o ne o fA sen’ s businesse s was at tack ed by i nd i vi du al s a ffi l i ate d w i th the Gal ev Brothers

. A sen w as on th e p ro p er ty atth e t im e; h e fire d w ar n i n g s h ot s, ac c idental l y hi ttin g on e o fthe i ntruders

. M r. Bi tsin tes ti fi ed that, as a re sul t o fthi s inci dent, l oca lp olice ac cused hi s f ath ero funauthor i zed use ofa w eapon; the pros ec ut o r, ho wev er, r efus ed to pur su e th e m attero n the4 N o. 12

- 2717

W hen the tr ial rec om m enced, M r. Bits in’ s m other and s is ter 5 w e n tto v i si tr e l a t i v e s i n F r a n c e . A tth e ti m e o f M r . B i t si n ’s m eri ts heari ng, they s ti ll res ided there. A
. R
. at 144. 6 gr ound that there was n o ev idence o fcr i m i nali ntent. M r. B its i n w as a s tudent i n Bla goe vgr ad and w as not pr e s e ntwh e n the i nc i de nto c c ur r e d. M r. B its inte st i f i ed th at, unb ek n ow n st to h im , his f atherco nti nued t o h ave diffi cul ti es w i th the Gal ev Brothers o ve r th e next few ye ar s a nd beg an to co oper ate inan on go in g in ve st iga tio n of th e G ale v B ro th er s’ o rg an izati on. In 200 7, Bulg ar i an o ffi ci al s insti tuted a cri m i nal proce edi ng ag ai nst the Gal ev B rother s, wh i ch l ate r w as postponed bec ause the t ar get s o fthe i nv es tigati on w er e s eek i ng el ec ted o ffi ce. A t s om e point afterthe proce e di ng s b e g a n, the f a c t tha t As e n wa s pl a nn i ngto te st i fy b ec ame kno wn, a nd the Bul g ar i ang o ve r nm en t t o o kh i m in t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y . T h e t r i a lr e c o mm en c ed in 2 01 0, an d A se n te st ified in t h e p ro c ee d in gs . In 5 N o ve m be r 2 01 0, the Ga l evBr o th er s w er e ac qui tt ed. To M r. Bi tsin’s kno w l edge, hi s f atherr em ai ns under th e pr o te ct i o n o fthe Bul g ar i an gov ernm en t whi l e th e author i ti es “l oo k[ ] f or chances to re open . . . the cour t pr oc ee d in gs .” 6 M r. Bitsin furth er testifi e d that he is afraid to retu rn to Bu l gar i a be cause of h i s f ather ’ s a cti vi ti es. H e pointed to anothe r coo perat i ng witne ss by the nam e o fC h orata, w ho w as m urdere d w hi l e in pol i ce c ustody. A dd i ti onal l y, i n 2 00 9, ne i g hb o r s o fAse n, who , a cc o r di ngt o M r . Bi ts i n, al so wer e co o per at i ngwi ththe i nv esti g at i o n o ftheN o. 12

- 2717 5

Id. at 86. 7 Id. at 87. 8 G ale v B ro th er s, w er e k ille d w h en a b om b ex p lod ed in th e i r g a r a g e . F i na l l y, Mr
. Bi t s i n s ub mi t t e d e v i dence concerni ng a re p or ter, Li dia Pavl ova, wh o l i ved i n fear because she had atte m pted to ex p os e the Gal ev Brothers ’ cr i m i na la ct i vi ti es . An i ndi vi duala ffi l i at ed wi ththe Gale v Bro ther s a tta cked P avl ova ’ s s on a nd r ecei ved onl y s i x m onths’ pro bati on f orthe att ack.

2. Inan ora l ru lin g, th e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge (“IJ” ) h eld that M r. Bi tsin’s ap pli cati on f oras yl um was ti m e-bar re d because he ha d not a pp l i ed f oras yl um withi n one yea r of a rriv in g in th e U n ite d Sta te s a n d d id n ot“fa ll[] w ith in an y on e o f th e e x c ep tio n s c on ta in ed in t h e re g u l a t i o n s.” 7 W i th r espectto the appli cati on f or w i thhol ding of re m ova l, the IJ deter m i ned that M r. Bi tsin had te st i fi ed cr edibl y c o nc erni ng h i s m an n er of en tr y in to th e U n ite d Sta te s, h is re p ea te d ad m i s sio n s a s a J1, th e in c id en t in 2000 i n whi c h hi s f a the r s ho ta n i nt r ud e r, h i s f ath er ’ s i nv o l ve m en t i n a sec ur i tyb us i ne ss , a nd th e threa ts ag a inst h is fath er by w ha t ap p ears to ha ve b ee n a c r i m i na lmafi a k no wn as the Grup ro vkiand hi s fearo fthe Gale v Brother s, and the cr i m i nalpro ceedi ngs a gainst the Gal ev Brothers wh i ch w er e undert ake n i n Bulga ri a. [ 8]6 N o. 12

- 2717

Id. 9 Id. at 3 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ); see8 U. S
. C. 10 § 11 5 8 (a )(2)(D ). N eve rthel ess , the IJ co nc luded thatM r. Bi tsin had not est abl i shed that he was m or e l i kel y than n ot to sufferper secuti on s houl d he be re turned t o Bu l gar i a. Speci fi cal l y, the IJ f ound that “[ h]e m er el y a l l ege d that in the m ost gen eral term s tha t he w as th e victim of corrupt ion . Th at i s no t s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh a l i kel i hood ofper secuti on. ” The IJ al so f ou nd thatM r. Bi tsin had 9 not m et his bu rd en of estab li sh ing tha t it w as m ore l i k ely tha n n o t th athe woul d b e to r tu r ed bythe Bul g ar i ang o ve r nm en t o r tha t th e Bul g ar ia n g o ve r nm en t woul d b e co m pl i ci t i n h i s to r tu r e, s ho ul d he be r etur ne d t o hi s na ti ve c o unt r y . Co ns eque nt l y, he was no t el i g ibl e f o r r el i efunde r the CAT.

3. The BIA affi rm ed w ith i ts own o pini on. I t a gr eed w i th the IJ tha t M r . Bi t s i n ha d no t e s t ab l i shed an ex ce pti o n th at woul d ex cus e th e l at e fi l i ng o f hi s a sy l um appli cati on. Speci fi cal l y, he ha d not e stabl i shed that hi s fi l i ng fora change i n sta tus co nsti tuted “e xtra
or dinar y c irc um sta nces. ” N orhad he “ shown r ecei pt of 10 an affi rm ati ve com m unic atio n fro m the [ Dep ar tm ent o f H om el and Secur i ty] , thatwould support hi s a ssert i on on a pp ealthathe was g i ven the equi val ent o fan a dm i ni s-N o. 12

- 2717 7

A .R . at3 (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ). 11 Id. at 4 (fir st a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l). 12 Id. at 5. 13 Id. 14 tr ati ve paro l e. ” Fur ther m or e, he ha d not e stabl i shed 11 th athi s f athe r ’ s invo l ve m en t i n the c o ur t ca se a g ains t th e Gale v Bro ther s “sh ou l d be co nstr ued as a n ‘ acti vi ty’ that th e re sp on d en t ‘b ec [am e] in vo lve d in o u ts id e o f [B u lga ri a] , ’ ” s o as to f al lwithi n the excepti on t o the o ne- yea r requ ir e m en t set forth in 8 C.F. R
. § 1208.4(a)( 4)(i )( B ). 12 Consequentl y, hi s a syl um appli cati on was unti m el y. The BIA al so agr eed with the IJ thatM r. Bi tsin had not est abl i shed one ofthe re qu irem ents f orwithhol ding of re m ova l : a cl earpro babi l i ty ofper secuti on o n acco unt of a pr o te ct ed ca te g o r y, na m ely hi s m embe rship i n a so c ial gr ou p . It n ot ed th at M r. B its inh ad live d in Bulgar i a afte r Ase n b eg anha vingdi ffi cul ti es wi ththe Gale v Bro ther s, but that M r. Bi tsin “ha[ d] no t r eceiv ed any thre ats fro m any i nd i vi du al or enti ty f or an y rea so n .” M or eo ve r, M r. B its inh ad “p ro vid ed little d et ail

13 about the c i rcum sta nces surr oundin g the al l ege d explo

sion at an oth er w itness ’s hou s e or th e shoot ing of a for m er co h or t o f th e G ale v B ro th er s, su c h th at w ou ld supp or t the co ncl usi on that the r espondent, as a son of a witness, would .

. . m or e l i kel y than not be t ar get ed f orper secuti on bythe Gale v Bro ther s. ” A dd i ti onal l y, 14 M r . B i t s i n h a d n o tme th i s b u r d e n o fs h o wi n gth a t“ th e Bul g ar i ang o ver nm en t woul d b e unabl e o r unwi l l i ng8 N o. 12

- 2717

Id. at 6. 15 Id. 16 to pr o te ct[ hi m ] , a s [ he ] t esti fi ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t pro t e c t e d h i s f a the r wh o m i tp l a c e d in a wi tne s s p r ote ctio n p ro gr am .” 15 F i na l l y, the BI A co nc l ude d tha t th e IJ “ pr o per l y c o ncl ud ed that the r espondent di d not s ati sfy hi s bur den of s h ow in g t h a t i t is m or e like ly th an n otth at h e w ill be tortur ed byo r a t th e i ns ti g at i o n o fo r wi ththe c o ns en t oracqu i esce nce o fthe Bu l gar i an go ver nm ent. ” Conse- 16 que nt l y, M r . Bi ts i n di d no t qua l i fy f o r r el i efunde r the CAT. M r . Bi t s i n t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II DI S C US S I ON On appea l, M r . Bi ts i n s ee k s r ev i ew a nd r ev er sa lo fthe BI A’s de term i na ti o ns wi thr es pec t to hi s appl i ca ti o ns f oras yl um , withhol ding ofr em ova land re l i efunder th e CA T. W e turn o ur a tte nti on fi rs t t o hi s a rgum ents c o n c e r n i n ga s y l u m.

A . J uri sdict i on t o Revi ew A syl um D et erm i nati on 1. Se c tio n 11 58 (a)( 2)(B ) of T itle 8 req u ire s th at alien s a p p ly f o r a sy l um wi th i n o ne ye ar a fte r the i r a r r i va li n theN o. 12

- 2717 9

8 U .S. C
. § 11 58 p ro v id es, in rele v an t pa rt: 17 ( a ) Aut ho r i ty t o a ppl y f ora s yl um

( 1) I n g eneral A ny alien w ho is p hy sica l ly p resen t in the U ni t ed S t at es or who a rr i ves i n the Uni t ed Sta t es ( whethe r or no tata des i gnated port ofarri val and incl ud ing an ali e n who i s br ou gh tt o the Un i t e d S tat es afterhaving been inte rdict ed in i nter nati onal or U nit ed Stat es w ater s) , i rres pect i ve o fs u c h a l i e n ’ s s t a t u s , ma y a p p l y f or as yl um i n a c c or danc e with thi s s ec t i on or, where appl i c abl e, s ec t i on 12 25 ( b) of thi s ti tl e. ( 2 ) E x c e pt i on s

. . . . (co n tin u ed ...) U nited States. A n alien’s ap p li cation f or asylum nev erth ele ss “m ay be co n sid er ed ” if h e “ d em on st ra te s . . . ei therthe exi ste nce o fchanged ci rcum sta nces w hi ch m at er ially affe c t [h is] e ligib ility for a sy lu m o r ex tr ao rd ina r y ci r cumst an ce s r el at i ng to th e del ay ” i n fi l i ng the a pp l i c a t i o n wi thin the pre s c r ib e d o ne - y e a r p e r i o d. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158(a)(2) (D). Section 1158(a)(3), how ever, depri ves c ou rt s o fj uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew a deter m i nati on r ega rdi ng t h e ti m el i ness ofan a l i en’ s a pp l i catio n fo r a s ylu m or th e e x ist en c e o f ch an ge d or ex tr ao rd inaryci rcum sta nces to excuse hi s l ate fi l i ng. 1710 N o. 12

- 2717

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 17 (B ) T im e lim it

Sub j ectt o subp aragraph (D), paragraph ( 1) s hall not apply to an al ie n unles s the ali en d em onst rat es b y cl ear and c onvi nc i ng e vi denc e thatthe ap p l i catio n h as b een filed w ithin 1 y e a r a ft e r th e d a t e o ft h e a l i e n ’s arr iv al in th e U nited States.

. . . . ( D ) C han ged ci rc um st ances A n ap p licati on f or as ylum ofan al i enm ay be c ons id er ed, no t withstan d ing sub p ara g rap hs ( B ) an d ( C ), if the ali en dem onst rat es to the sat is f acti on of the A tt orney G eneral ei ther th e e x i s t e n c e o fc h a n g e d c i r c u ms t anc es whi c h m at er i al l y a ffec tthe appl i c ant ’ s e l i gibi l i t y f or as yl um or ex t ra or di nar y c i rc um s t anc es r el at i ng t o the d el ay i n fi l i ng a n a ppl i c at i on wi thi n the pe r iod s pe c i fi e d i n s ub

p a ra g ra p h (B ). ( 3) Li m i t at i on on j ud i ci al r eview N o cou rt s hall have j uris dicti on to re
view any determ inat ion of th e Attorne y G en er a l u n d er p a ra g ra p h (2). Despit e § 1158( a) ( 3) , this court m ay re vi ew co nsti tuti onal cl ai m s or questi ons ofl aw r el ate d to the t i m el y fi l i ng o fN o. 12

- 2717 11

8 U .S.C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2)(D ) p ro v id es : 18 N othi ng in s u b p a ragraph (B) or ( C), or i n any other pro vi s i on of thi s c hapt er ( othe r than thi s sect i on) whi c h l i m i t s o r e l i m i na t e s j udi c i a l r e vi e w, s ha l l be const rued as precl ud ing r ev ie w ofcons ti tuti onal c l ai m s or que s t i ons ofl aw ra i s ed upo n a pe t i t i on f or rev iew filed w ith an ap p ro p riate co u rt of ap p eals i n a c c or danc e with thi s s ec t i on. an as ylu m ap p lica tio n . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D )
. We 18 have i nter prete d th is excepti on t o apply “to st ri ctl y l ega l contr ove rs i es, ” bywh i c h w e “m ean[ ] thatthe parti es conte st a l ega li ssue, and that th e al i en wins i fthe l aw provi des wh at he sa ys i t doe s a nd l ose s i fi t pr ovi des wha tthe a g e nc y s a y s i tdo es. ” R estrepo v. Ho lder, 61 0 F.3d 962 , 965 (7th C ir. 2010). I n Vira ca ch a v. M uk a sey, 5 1 8 F
. 3 d 511 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , we co ns i der ed whethe r a n a l i en ’ s ar gum en t

— that changed ci rcum sta nces j usti fi ed a del ay i n apply i ng fo r asy l um

— w as a pure questi on o fl aw forpurposes o f § 1 25 2(a )(2) (D ). In th at ca se , [ a] n i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e c o nc l uded that [ Vir acacha] had not est abl i shed “the ex iste nce of c h an ge d circ u m st an c e s w h ich m at er ially affe c t t h e a p p lica n t’s eligib ility for a sy lu m ,” § 1 158( a) ( 2) ( D). H e a rgued th at he fear s the Revolution ary A rm ed Forces of Colom bia (FA R C ), an i nsurge nt gr oup that thre ate ned him with death afterhe o pp ose d i ts oper atio ns. But because he to l d the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge that he had12 N o. 12

- 2717 l eft Co l o m bi a i n 1 99 8 pr ec i se l y b ec au se o fthe FA R C ’s t h re at s, th e IJ f o u n d th at h e s h ou ld ha ve a ppli ed f o r a sy l um i m m edi at ely o n a r r i ving i n the U ni ted S tat es. [V ira cacha] te sti fi ed that h e d ela ye d be c au se h e e x p ec te d th e d om es tic si tuati on in Co lom bi a t o i m prove , but that i t had in st ea d (in h is v iew ) be c om e w or se . Th e I J d id no t s e e thi s a s a n a de qu a t e j us t i fi c a t i o n, bo th because co nd i ti ons i n C olo m bi a had notchange d m at er i al l y a nd bec au se ho pi ngf o r i m pr o ve m en t does not j usti fy del ay i n fi l i ng. Id. a t 51 2. The B I A a ff i r m ed. Be f o r e th i s co ur t, Vi r ac ac ha m ai ntai ned that the IJ and the BIA “ er re d o n a quest i on of law ,” an d , th er efo re , his p et itio n for re vie w fell wi th i n the e xc ept i o n t o the j ur i sdi ct i o na lb arf o r “ co nsti tuti onalc laim s orquesti ons ofl aw . ” Id. at51 4 ( ci tations om itted ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). W e di sag re ed. W e no ted thatthe IJ had f ound that Vir ac ach a “ had deliber ate l y r efra i ned fr om m aking a ti m el y a pp l i cati on f oras yl um , and t h at any cha nge i n con d i ti ons i n Col om bi a s i nce then [ w a] s no t m ate
rial

. ” Id. W e ex pl aine d tha t th e fi r stc o nc l us i o n i s o ne of“f act and the s eco nd i s a n ap p licati on o fl aw to f act; ne i the r r e s t s o n o r r e fl e c t s a l e g a lmi s t a k e. ” Id. ; see also F erry v . Go nz a les , 4 5 7 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 7, 1 1 3 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 20 06) ( “Fe rr y’ s a rgum ent that hi s pendingad j u stm ent o f sta tus a pp l i cati on qual i fi ed as ei thera chan ge d o r extr ao r d i n a r y c i r c u ms t a n c e t o e x c u s e h i s u n t i me l y a s y l um appli cati on i s a chal l enge to an exer ci se ofdi scr eti on that re m ai ns o utsi de oursco pe ofrevi ew . ”)
. Consequently, w e d id n ot ha ve j urisd iction to cons ider th e a lie n ’s ar-N o. 12

- 2717 13 g um en ts
. W e l i k ewi se a r e pre cl ude d fr o m c o ns i der i ng M r . Bi ts i n’ s ar g um en ts co nc erni ng th e m at er i al i ty o f any change i n ci rcum sta nces i n Bulga ri a. Ou r re vi ew o fM r. Bi tsin’s cl ai m thathe e stabl i shed “e x tr ao rd in ar y c irc u m st an c es ” t h at j u st ify th e d ela y in hi s a pp l icati on s i m i l ar l y i s ba rr ed. W hetherpart i cul ar f acts co nstitu te “extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces” i s a ki n to w hetherpart i cul ar“chang ed ci rcum sta nces ” a re m ate
ria l. See Su k w a np utra v. G o nz a les , 4 3 4 F
. 3 d 6 2 7, 6 3 5 ( 3d Cir
. 20 06) ( hol ding that w hetherpeti ti oner had “m et her b u rd en o fdem onst ra ti ng change d ci rcum sta nces m ateriall y affectin g asylum eli gibil ity or ex traor d inary ci rcum sta nces re l ating to the del ay chal l enges [ the Attorne y Ge ne r al ’ s] e xe r ci se o fdi sc r et i o n” a nd the r efore “[s ]u c h a c laim d oe s n otrais e a co n st itu tio n al c laim or qu estion of l aw c o v e r e d by the RE A L I D A ct’s j ud i ci alr evi ew pro vi si on”)
. In ei thercas e, the q u es tio n re quir es us to apply a le ga lst andard to a gi ven s et of fac ts
. See Z hu v. G o nz a les , 49 3 F.3 d 5 88 , 59 6 ( 5th Ci r. 20 07) ( “ T h u s , th e IJ ’ s r ej e c t i o n o fZ h u ’ s e x t r a o r d i n a r y - c i r c u msta nces c laim was base d on an e val uati on o fthe f acts and c i rcum sta nces of her case . W e do not h av e juri sdic

ti o n to r ev i ew the IJ ’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t Zhu’ s as y l um appl i ca ti o n was unt i m ely . ”). As we he l d i n Virac ac ha , th i s t y p e o f i s s u e d o e s n o t r a i s e a q u e s t i o n o f l a w, a nd i t there f or e d oes notf al lwithi n § 1 252’ s e xcepti on t o the j uri sdic ti onalbaro f§ 1158
.
2. M r. Bits i n ar gues that the c ourtnonethel ess m ay c o n s i d e r h i s a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e th e BI A c o m-14 N o. 12

- 2717

S eeI n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f“ P e r i o d o fS t a y Au th o r i z e d b y t he 19 A ttorney G eneral ” i n determ ini ng “un lawful prese nce” under IN A sectio n 2 12 (a)( 9)(B)(i i) (200 3), http ://w w w .uscis. g ov /files/ p re ssr el ea se /P o fSt a y 4 0 2 3 P u b .p d f. M r. Bi t s i n a l s o s ubm its th ata m em or andum e xpl ai ni ng 20 the “ De fe r r e d Ac t i onf orCh i l dh oo d Ar r iva l s ” P r og r a m s up p o rt s h is c la im
. S eeE xercisin g Pro secu tor ial D iscr e tion w ith R esp ect to In d iv id u als W ho C am e to th e U nited S t ates as C hildre n ( 20 12 ) , ht t p: //ww w. dhs

. gov/xl ibra ry / as s et s / s 1- ex er c i s i ngp ro se c u t o r i a l -d i sc r e t i o n-ind iv id u als-w ho -cam e-to-us-asch ild ren .pd f. M r. Bitsin d id no t com e to th e U nited States a s a c h i l d

. M o r e o v e r , th e m e m o r a n d u m o n l y se t s f o r th th e a g e n c y ’s (co n tin u ed ...) m i tt ed ane r r o r o fl aw i n i ts i nt er p retatio n o f8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( i v )
. S e c t i o n 1 2 0 8
. 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) s e t s f o r th s o me “ex traord inary c ircu m stan ces” that j us tify an alien’s del ayi n fi l i ngf o r a sy l um , a m o ngwhi ch is: “ ( i v) The ap p lica n t . . . w as giv en p ar ole []
. . . .” A lth ou gh M r. B its in neverwas gr anted paro l e, he ne ve rt h eles s cl ai m s that h e o b ta in ed th e e q u iva len t o f ad m in ist ra tiv e p ar ole w hen he filed hi s a pp l i cati on f ora student vi sa. H e points t o a Un i ted S tat es J usti ce Depar tm ent M em ora nd um , the subj ect ofwh i ch i s “ I nter pr et ati on o f ‘P er iod of St ay A u t h or ize d by th e A tt or n ey G en er al’ in deter m i ni ng ‘ unlawfulpre sence’ u n der I N A se cti on 21 2( a) ( 9) ( B) ( i i) , ” to s uppo r t hi s cl ai m . Thi s m emor an 19 du m , however, address es how to cal cul ate the peri od o f un law ful presen ce for pu rp oses of d e t e r mi n i n gi nadm is si bil ity ; i tdo e s n o tp ur po r tt o s pe a kt o fi l i ngde a dl i n e s f o r a s y l u m. 20N o. 12

- 2717 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 20 p rior ities w ith resp ect to a lloca tion of pr osec u tor ial r e so u rces; it do es no t spe ak to , no r d oe s it crea te, rights for p riv ate ind iv id u als. 3. Fin ally , M r . B its insu b m its th at w e m ay rev iew h is asy l um claim bec ause the BI A i ncor re ctl y c oncl ud ed, as a m att ero fl aw , thatan a l i en as sertin g a deri vati ve asy l um c lai m m ay not i nvoke the changed ci rcum sta nces ex cep tion to the one-year fi ling de ad line . T he BIA ’s deci si on does notst ate , norev en sugg est, such a r esul t. Se cti on 1 208. 4 o fT itle 8 ofthe Code ofFe deralRegula ti ons i m p l em ents the o ne- yea r fi l i ng deadl i ne f or asy l um appli cati ons, as wellas the excepti on s to that deadli ne, se t for th i n 8 U.S
. C. § 1 158. W i th r es p ect to the “c h an ged ci rcum sta nces” excepti on, i t s tat es that “change d ci rcum sta nces . . . shal lr efer to ci rcum sta nces m at er ially affe c tin g th e ap p lica n t’s eligib ility for a sy lu m .” Id. § 1208.4(a)( 4)(i ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). These incl ude, but a reno t lim it ed t o : . . . ( B) Cha ng es i n the appli cant’ s ci rcum sta nces that m ate ri al l y a ffect th e appl i ca nt ’ s el i g ibi l i tyf o r asylum , i nc l udi ng c h a n g e s i n a p p l i ca bl e U. S
. l a w and ac t i vi t i e s the appl i ca ntb e co m e s in vol ve d i n o uts i dethec oun t ry of f e are d p e rs e cu t i on th at p lac e t h e a p p lica n t a t ris k[.] Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ). Befo re the BIA, M r. Bi tsin ar gued that th e IJer re d i n f ai l i ng to co nsi der whether h is f ather ’ s co oper ati on16 N o. 12

- 2717

w i th the Bulg ar i an go ver nm ent c onstitu ted an “ acti vi t[ y ] the a ppel l an t be c[ ame] i nv o l ve d i n o ut side the co unt r y o ff eare d pe r se cut i o n” f o r pur po se s o f8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i ) ( B )
. T h e B I A co r r e c t l y d e t e r mi n e d , h o weve r, thatthe IJ had not er re d because ther e was “no supp or t” f orthe concl usi on that Asen’s “invol vem ent in a Bul gar i an cas e s houl d b e c onstrued as an ‘ acti vi ty’ ” t h at M r. Bi tsin hi m sel f“ ‘ bec[ am e] i nvol ved inou ts id e o f th e c ou n tr y of fe ar ed p e rs ec u tio n .’ ” A. R. a t 4 ( al te r at i o n in o r i g i na l ) ( quo ting 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i ) ( B) )
. N o thingi n thi s s t a t e men th o l ds

— as M r . Bi ts i n maint ains

— o r e ve n s ug g es ts tha t th e ac ti o ns or polit ica l op inions of a r elative in th e ap p li can t’s c o u n t r y o fo r i g i n c a n n o tc o n s t i t u t e c h a n g e d c i r c u mst an ce s. Inde ed, i n the pr es en t ca se, the BI A co nsi dered wh etherA sen’s coo perat i on m ate ri al l y a ffecte d M r. Bi tsin’s appli cati on, bu t concl ud ed that i t di d not. See i d. I n sum , none ofthe i ssues M r. Bi tsin ra i ses with re sp ec t t o th e d et er m in at ion th at h e d o e s n o t fall w ith in ane xc ept i o n t o the one- y ea r fi l i ngde adl i ne f o r a sy l um appli cati ons ar e “ const i tuti onalcl ai m s o r questi ons of l aw .” 8 U.S
. C. § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( D). Consequentl y, we do not ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n t o c o ns i derthe de ni alo fhi s as y l um appl i ca ti o n.

B. W i t hh ol ding o fRem ova l A n ap p lica n t is eligib le for w ith h old in g of re m ov al if he “dem onst ra te[ s] a cl earpro babi l i ty ofper secuti on o n ac c ou n t o f h is ‘ra c e, re ligion , na tio n alit y, m em b er s h i p inN o. 12

- 2717 17

W h e r e , a s h e r e , th e B o a r d i ss u e d i t s o w n o p i n i o n, th e B o a r d ’s 21 d ec isi o n for m s th e b a sis fo r ou r r ev ie w . See, e . g. , L iu v . A sh c ro ft, 3 8 0 F .3d 30 7, 31 1 (7t h C ir . 20 0 4 ). a par ti cul arso ci algr oup, o r pol i ti calo pini on. ’ ” Tariq v. Keisler, 5 05 F
. 3d 65 0, 6 56 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( quotin g 8 U .S.C . § 12 31 (b )(3) (A )). To es ta b lish a “c lea r p ro b ab ility ,” th e p et itio n er m u st sh ow “t h at ‘it is m or e like ly th an n o t t h at [h e] w ou ld be su bj ec t t o p er se c u tio n ’ in the c ountr y t o w hi ch he would be r etur ned

. ” IN S v
. C ardoza -Fonse ca , 48 0 U.S
. 42 1, 42 3 ( 1987 ) ( quoti ng INS v. Ste vic, 46 7 U.S
. 40 7, 42 9- 30 ( 19 84 ) )
. “Per secuti on” does no t i nc l ude the a ct i o ns o f p r i va te c i ti ze ns “ unl es s th e gov er nm ent i s co m pli ci t in th os e acts ori s unabl e o r u n w illi ng to ta ke ste ps to pre vent them

. ” Chaki rv. G o n z a les , 46 6 F
. 3d 563, 57 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. W e r evi ew th e BI A’s de ci si o n w ith r es pec t to a de ni alo fwi th

21 hol ding ofr em ov al u nd erthe substa nti alev i dence te st. Ha ich un Liu v. Ho lder, 692 F.3d 848 , 852 (7th C ir. 2012). Underthe s ubs ta nt i ale vi d en ce te st, the de ci si o n o fthe Board “m ust be upheld i fsupporte d by r eas onabl e, su bs ta nt i al, a nd pr oba ti ve e vi den ce o n the r ec o r d c o nsi d ered a s a whol e, ” an d we wi l l“ r ev er se [ ] o nl y i fthe ev id en c e p re se n te d

. . . w as su c h th at a re a s o n ab le f actfi nd erwould have to conclu d e” that the pet i ti oner had m et hi s bur den

. IN S v . E lia s-Z a ca ria s, 50 2 U.S
. 47 8, 481 (1992 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ).18 N o. 12

- 2717 1. M r . Bi ts i n fi r st m aint ains th at, wi th r es pec t to the deci si on t o deny w ith h old i ng o fr em ova l, the IJ m i sta k en l y unde r st o o d hi s cl ai m to be ba se d o n his ow n, a s o p p o s e d t o h i s f a th e r ’ s , a c t i v i t i e s i n B u l g a r i a . We obs er ve t h at the IJ ’ s o pini on does em plo y the fi rs t and thi rd per son i nter changeabl y, w hi ch m ay sugge st som e con fusion w ith resp ect to th e nat ure of M r. Bitsin’s cl ai m . N eve rth ele ss, the BIA cl ear l y unders too d that M r. Bi tsin’s cl ai m f orr el i efc en ter ed on Asen’s act i vi ti es, see, e . g. , A. R. a t 5 ( “ Th e r e s po nd e nt ha s e nd e a v o r ed to defi ne hi s par ticulars o ci alg r o up i n s ev er alway s, b ut th e d e f in itio n s w er e a ll, u ltim at ely , d er ive d from h is fam ily r e lationsh ip w ith his father w ho w as a coop erating w itness at a tri al agains t th e G alev Brot he rs[]
. . . . ”), and, i n an y ev en t, i t i s the BI A ’ s deci si on, notthe IJ ’ s, th at th is c ou rtrev iew s, Liu v. Ashcroft, 38 0 F
. 3d 307, 31 1 (7th C ir. 2004).

2. M r . Bi ts i n n ex t cl ai m s th atthe BI A i g no r ed th e cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ng s o fthe IJ a nd the wea l tho fthe e v i de nc e i n c o nc l ud i ng tha t As e n wa s no t “ s ubj e c t [ e d] to a friv olo u s p o lice inv es tig at ion an d sla n d er ou s m ed ia publ i ci ty ” co nc erni ngthe s ho o tingi nc identi n 2 00 0. A. R. at 5 n .4. T h e IJ, ho w ev er , d id n otm ak e a n y c re d ibi l i ty fin d in gs concerni ng the natur e o r si gni fi cance of the s hoot i ng i nci dent, but m er el y dete rm i ned th at M r. Bi tsin tes ti fi ed cr edibl y that hi s fath er had shotan i ntruder. The IJ l ate r c on c l ud ed that he co uld notN o. 12

- 2717 19

M r. Bi t s i n c ont en ds thathe wil l s ufferpe rs ec ut i on on the 22 bas i s ofhi s m em bersh ip i n the s oc i al gr oup c ons i s t i ng o f i ndi vi dual s who ha ve t es t i fi ed ( or will tes t i fy) ag ai ns tthe G a le v B ro th er s a n d o f th o se in d iv id u a l s ’ f a m ily m em b er s. S ee Pe t ’ r’ s Br. 25
. He al s o c l ai m s that he w ill be pe rs ec ut ed o n the b as i s tha thi s f athe r’ s pol i t i c al opi ni on

— “hi s f athe r’ s s t atus as a whis t l ebl ower an d hi s ove rtan d publ i c e xpr es s ion s of disapprov al ofthe corr up t pr a ct ices ofthe polic e and local authorit ie s w ho prov ide as si st ance t o the cri m in a l act ivit ie s of the G alev B ro the rs”

— w i l l be i mp u t e d t o h i m. Id. a t2 6
. We need n o t det erm ine, how ever, w hetherM r. Bits in has m et his burd en ofes tabli shi ng that he i s a m em ber ofa p a rt ic ular soc ial group , or that hi s fa th er’ s act ivit ie s const itute a polit ic al (co n tin u ed ...) att ribute t o the inci dent t h e si gni fi cance urge d by M r . Bi ts i n b ec au se i t was “ a no n- po l i ti ca le ve nt i nv o l vinghi s f athe r wor k i nga s a g ua r d o r pr o te ct i ng proper ty as a s ecuri ty offi ci al

. ” Id. at89. M or eov er, nei ther the fac t that the pr ose cutordecl i ned to bring char ges aga i nst A sen, northe quotes fro m a l oca lnewsp aper th atc ha r ac te r i ze the s ho ts a s “fi r ed to ‘ pr ev en t’ the i ntrude rfr o m ‘ r unningf ar th er, ’ ” Pe t’ r ’ s Br
. 2 4 ( quo ting A
. R. at 190) , re quir ed the BIA t o concl ud e that the G alev Brothers had com m and ed the ass i sta nce o fl oca lpol i ce o r the medi a i n pe r se cut i ngo r s l an der i ngAse n.

3. A t bo tto m , M r. Bi ts in argues thatthe evi dence he pr esente d requi re d the BI A to co ncl ud e th at, bas ed on hi s f am i l i alti es w i th hi s fath er, he wil lsufferhar m at 2220 N o. 12

- 2717

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 22 op i ni ontha twi l l b e i m pu t e d t o hi m , be c a us e we c on c l ude thatM r. B i t s i n h as no tm ethi s i ni t i al bur den ofs howi ng a clear p ro b ab ility of p ersecu tio n sh ou ld he b e rem ov ed to B u lg a ri a . C

f
. Jun Y i n g Wan g v. G on zale s , 44 5 F .3 d 9 9 3 , 99 7 (7th C ir. 20 06 ) (“W an g m u st m ak e tw o show ing s. F irst, sh e m u st establ i s h that s he has s uffer ed pas t per s ec ut i on or ha s a w el l

- f ounde d fea r offut ur e per s ec ut i on. Se c ond, s he m ust sho w th at the p ersecu tion she en d u red ( or fear s she w ill en dure ) i s ‘on ac c ountof’ on e ofthe fi ve s t atut or i l y pr ote ct ed g ro u n d s.” ). the hands o fthe Gale v Bro ther s i fretur ned to Bu l gar i a. A s we note d previ ousl y, however, “per secuti on . . . does not encom pass pure l y pri vate act i ons. ” Jonai t i e nev. Ho lder, 66 0 F
. 3d 267, 27 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. Consequentl y, M r. Bi tsin had to est abl i sh noto nl y a cl earpro bability that he would be perse cuted at the ha n d s of the Gal ev Brothers , b ut thatthe Bu l gar i an go ver nm ent e i ther woul d b e co m pl i ci t i n the se a ct i o ns o r woul d b e unwi l l i ng or u n ab le t o p re ve n t t h em . SeeCh akir, 46 6 F
. 3d at 570. Tur ni ngt o the e vi den ce s uppo r tinghi s cl ai m thathe w ou ld be h ar m ed if h e ret u rn ed to B u lga ria , M r. B its in poi nts t o hi s f ather ’ s par ti ci pati on in the tr i alag ai nst the Gal ev B ro ther s, the thre ats r ecei ved by hi s f ather a n d h i s f a th e r ’ s p l a c e me n ti n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y . He al so re l i es on the har m thathas befa llen C hor ata an d A sen ’s neighb ors, w hom , M r. Bitsin a s serts, w ere sl at ed to t es ti fy a g ains t t he Ga l evBr o th er s, a nd the att ack on Pavl ova ’ s s on, f orwh i ch th e ass ai l ant r ece i ve d o nl y s i x months ’ pr o ba ti o n.N o. 12

- 2717 21

I n h i s r epl y b rief, M r. Bi t s i n a rg ues thatthe IJ an d the 23 (co n tin u ed ...) Altho ug h Mr. Bi ts i n h as pr o duce d e vi den ce tha t he m ay be at ri sk i f he re turns to Bu l gar i a, the evid en ce do e s n o tr e qu i r e a r eas onab l e f a c t fi nd e r t o c o nc l ud e ei therthatM r. Bi tsin est abl i shed a c lear pr obab i l i ty that h e w ill s uffer harm at the h an d s of th e G alev Brot he rs o r tha t th e Bu lgar i ang o ve r nm en t i s unabl e o r unwi l l i ng to prot ect hi m . A ccor ding to M r. Bi tsin, A sen has had d iffi cu lti es w ith th e G alev Brot he rs since 200 0; ne verthel ess , al though M r. Bi tsin w as i n Bulga ri a inter m i ttently unti l20 05, h e nev erper sonal l y was thr eat ened or harm ed. M or e i m port antl y, how eve r, th e B ulg ar i an author i ti es have not been com pli ci t in the acti ons of the Gale v Brothers , but have i nsti tuted and p u rs ued cri m inalpro ceedi ngs a gainst them

. W e pr evi ousl y hav e o bs er ve d tha t a g o ve r nm en t’ s s tep s “t o puni shthe per so ns r espons ibl e f o r the v i o l en ce ” su ppo r ts a c o nc l usio n th at it is n otu n w illin g o r u n ab le t o p ro te c t in d ivi du al s who have been the v i cti m s o fethnic att acks

. V a ho ra v . Ho lder, 70 7 F
. 3d 904, 90 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 13)
. A dd iti o na l l y, the Bul g ar i ang o ve r nm en t ha s bee n pr o vi di ng A se n w i t h p ro te c tio n, an d h as ke p t h im sa fe, for alm osttwo ye ar s fol l owing the concl usi on o fthe Gale v Brothers ’ tr i al

. Thu s, thi s case does not prese nt a s i tuatio n w h er e a n ind ivid u al h as s o u g h t h elp , bu t s im p ly w as “advi [ sed] to m ai ntai n a l ow p ro fi l e”

— ci rcum sta nces w hi ch, we have c oncl ud ed, ar e “ str ong ev id en ce that the g ove rnm ent .
. . i s ind eed in c ap abl e o fpro tect i ng” th e a p p lica n t. Ho r v. G o nz a les, 42 1 F
. 3d 497, 50 2 ( 7th C ir. 2005). 2322 N o. 12

- 2717

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 23 BIA err ed in evaluat ing his cl aim f or w ithholding of rem oval because they requir ed him to m eeta m ore onerous burd en thanwe ha ve i m pos ed i n pr i or c as es . A cco rdi ng t o M r. Bi t s i n, he was r equi re d t o s how “the c om plete he l pl es s ne s s ofthe Bu lgari a n g o v ernm ent” to prote cthim from the G ale v Brothe rs , wher ea s we pr evi ous l y ha ve re qui re d onl y a sho w ing tha t the g ov ern m en t w as u n w illing or u na b le to aff ord p rote ct ion
. S eeRepl y Br
. 6- 7 ( i nt er nalquo t at i on m ar ks om it ted) ( em phasis rem o v ed )
. M r. Bits in onl y full y d eveloped thi s a rg um en ti n h i s r epl y br i ef, an d, the re f or e, the ar gum en t is w a iv e d

. SeeBodens t ab v. C ounty of C ook, 569 F. 3d 651, 658 (7th C ir. 20 09 ) (“B od en stab , ho w e v er, did no t d ev elop these ar gum en t s u ntil hi s r epl y br i efan d thus ha s wai ved a ny su ch ar g u m en t.” ). Ev e n i fh e h a d n o tw a i v e d th e a r g u me n t, h o w e v e r , we can no t ag ree th at it p ro v id es a b a si s for re v ersal. A s w e p rev io u sly h a v e n o te d , w e re v ie w t h e d ec isi o n o f th e B IA , no t th e I J. S ee su p ra no t e 21
. I n thi s c as e, the BI A did n otf aul tM r. Bi t s in f or f ai l i ng t o e s t abl i s h th e com ple tehelple ssness ofthe Bu lgari an gov ernm ent; i nst ead, its tat ed that, “[e] ven ifthe G ale v B rother s w e r e a c q u i t t e d b y a r e g i o n a l c o u r t, t h i s a l o n e d o e s n o td e mon s t r a t e tha tthe Bu l ga r i a n gove r nme ntwou l d b e unabl e or unw i l l i ng to p ro te ct th e r es p o n d en t.” A .R
. a t 6 (em p h a sis ad d ed ). T h e B IA th e n c i t e d co rr ec tly o n e o f ou r o p in io n s, M argos v. G on zale s , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 5 9 3 , 5 9 9 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h w e e mpl oye d the f ol l owin g l ang uage : “Thi s i s not a c as e i n whi c h the g ov ern m en t at issue is un w illing an d com p letely un ab l e to aff ord p rote ct ion. ” S ee als o H or v. G on zale s , 42 1 F .3d 497 , 50 1 (7th Ci r. 2 00 5) (“You c ann ote venc l ai m as yl um onthe bas i s of perse cuti on b y a p rivate group unles s the gov ernm ent ei ther co n d o n es it o r is h el p le ss to p re v en t it [] .
. . .”). (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 12

- 2717 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 23 Th e r e s i m pl y i s n o e vidence h e r e tha tthe BI A a ppl i e d a stan d ard m or e strin g e nt th an tha t the g ov ern m en t of Bu lga ria w a s “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g ” to p ro te ct M r. B its in
. C . R e l i e fu n d e rt h e C AT M r. Bi tsin al so see ks re vi ew o fthe BIA’s determ i nati on that he “did notsa ti sfy hi s bur den ofsho w i ng tha t i t i s m or e l i kel y than n ot t hat he w i l lbe tor ture d by o r at the insti gat i on o fo r w i th the co nsen t o r acqui esce nce ofthe Bu l gar i an go ver nm ent. ” A.R. at6. To pr evai lo n hi s peti ti on f orr evi ew , M r. Bi tsin m ust e stabl i sh that the BI A ’s d eterm i nati on was notsupporte d by s ubst an tia l ev id en c e. Wa njiru v. Ho lder, 70 5 F
. 3d 258, 26 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 3 )
. Un d e r th i s d e fe r e n t i a ls t a n d a r d , we shal lr eve rs e o nl y i fa re aso nable f actfi nd erwould have to co n c lu d e t h at M r. B i ts inm et h is b u rd en . See E lia s-Z a ca ria s, 50 2 U.S
. at48 1. I n o r dert o e st ab l i she l i gibil i tyf o r r el i efunde r the CA T, M r. Bi tsin m ust s how that“ ‘ i t i s m or e l i kel y than not th at h e . . . wil lbe tor ture d’ ” i fhe i s r etur ned to B u l g a r i a. R ashiah v. A shcroft, 38 8 F
. 3d 1126 , 11 31 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo ting8 C. F
. R. § 2 08
. 16 )
. A ccor di ngt o the re gul ati on s, to rture i s defi ned as “ any a ct b y which seve re pai n orsuffer i ng[ ]
. . . i s intenti onal l y infl i cted o n a per son . . . wh en suc h pai n orsuffer i ng i s infl i cted by or at the i nsti gat i on of or w i th the conse nt or ac q u i escence of a publi c o ffi ci alo r othe r perso n acting i n an o ffi ci alc apac i ty
. ” 8 C. F
. R. § 2 08
. 18 ( a) ( 1)
. Gi ve n tha t th e Bul g ar i ana utho r i ti es b o thha ve a tt empte d to b rin gthe Gale v Bro ther s t o j usti ce a nd al so have provi ded pro -24 N o. 12

- 2717 tect i on f orA sen duri ng th e c ou rs e o fcr i m i nalpro ceedi ngs, we cannot concl ud e that M r. Bi tsin has m et hi s bur den of showing that he wil lm or e l i kel y than not be t o r tu r ed “a t th e i ns ti g at i o n o f o r wi ththe c o ns en t or ac q u ies c en c e o f” t h e B u lga ri a n gov er n m en t s h ou ld he r etur n to thatco untry.
Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we dism i ss f or la c k ofj uri sdic tion that port i on o fM r. Bi tsin’s peti ti on r el ate d to hi s a syl um appli cati on, and w e deny th at port i on o f M r. B it sin’ s pet i ti o n r el at ed to hi s cl ai m s f o r wi th

ho l di ngo fr emov ala nd r el i efunde r the CAT. P E T I T I ON D IS MIS S ED i n part AND

D ENI ED i n p art

5- 31- 13