2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-29-2007 

# F nu v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-4889

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" F nu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 862. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/8621 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 05- 4889

__________ RA CH M AD F NU,

Pet i t i oner v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R es pondent

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce ( B I A N o. A 96- 203- 820)

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 18, 2007 B efore: M cK E E , F ISH E R and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 29, 2007)We have jurisdiction to revie w the final order of the B IA under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. 1 Where the B IA af

firms the IJ ’s dec ision withoutopinion, we re view the de cision of the IJas the final ag ency

decision. Zhang v. Gonzales , 405 F.3d 150, 155 ( 3d Cir. 2005). We review the denial of w ithholding of removal for substantial evide nce wherethat issue is properly before us. Di a v . A sh c ro

ft , 353 F.3d 228, 245 ( 3rd Cir. 2003) ( en banc ). 2 __________ OP I NI ON

__________ M cK ee, C i r cui tJ udge: R achmad Fnu pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls a f

f ir m in g th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and def err al of r emoval undert he U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O t herC ruel , I nhum an orD egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent ( CA T ) . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yF n u ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i t yw i th t he fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t or yand th e re f o re , n e e d n o t s e t f

o rt h th e f a c tu a l o r p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a s e . I n or dert o qual i fyforas y l um orw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , Fnu m us tes t abl i s h t hat h e is a “ re f

u g e e ” u n d e r t h e Im m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . A ccor di ngl y , he has t he bur den of pr ovi ng bycl earand convi nci ng evidence thathe is un able orun w i l l i ng t o return t o the cou ntryof h i s nat i on al i t y“beca use of per s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on,Th e re ferenc e to w ithho ldi ngof re mov a l is a s f

oll ow s: “ It is c le ar t

hat Pe tition e r m e e ts 2 the basic e ligibility

requirements for a

grant of a sylum and withholding of removal.” A ppellant’s Br . at 4. 3 n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). A n appl i cat i on foras y l um m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es abs ent“extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o t he del ayi n fi l i ng t he appl i cat i on. ” 8 U . S . C . § § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(B ) an d (D ). W e d o n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the IJ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e e x iste n c e o r a b se n c e o f e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s re q u ire d to a v o id th e o n e y e a r l im ita tio n o n f ilin g a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . S e e T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H e re , the IJ r u led th a t F n u is s tatu to rilyin e lig ib le f o r a sy lu m b e c a u se h e f

a iled to t i m el yfi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s t hat
w oul d excus e the del ay . M or eover , Fnu concede d befor e the I J t hatt he as y l um cl ai m w as ti m e b arred an d fa il ed to p rese n t any ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s o r ch an g ed co u n try condi t i ons w arr ant i ng a w ai verof t he s t atut or ydeadl i ne. A c c o rd in g ly, w e d o n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f a s y lu m . W e do, how ever , have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef undert he C A T . H ow ever , i n t he br i ef Fnu fi l ed i n s uppor tof hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , he onl ypet i t i ons forr evi ew of t he deni al of as y l um . A l t hough t he br i ef c ont ai ns a pas s i ng r e f e r e n c e t o w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , i ti s j u s tt h a t , a p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y,

2The CAT is not even me ntioned in the brief. 3 Although F nu has waived any claim he may

have had to withholding of re moval and 4 re lie f u nd e r t heCA T, weno tethat ou

r e xami natio n o f t

here c ord le a ds us to c on c lud e that hi s p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e ww o u l d

h av e b e e nd e n i e d

e v e ni f th o s e c l a i m s h a d

n o tb e e nw a i v e d . T h e IJ found F nu’s testimony

not cre dible beca

use his written statements a bout Galal’s political a c tiv iti e s c ontr a dic te d F nu ’s te sti mony a bo ut h is c on fl ic t w ithGala l. That c re dib ili ty deter mination is supported by

the re cord a

nd fatally undermines F nu’s attempt to qualify for “re fug ee” status or relief under the CAT. 4 Fnu has w ai ved anychal l enge t o t he deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he CA T. See Nagl e v. A l s pach , 8 F . 3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 (3rd C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 3 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f

f i r m th e d e c i s i o n o f

th e I J , a n d d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 4