### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 22, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1033 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N os. A 95- 263- 445 & A 95- 263- 446 JAIM E EDUARDO DELGADO , NU BIAPA MEL A R IV ER OS , P et iti one rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC E, R es pond en ts.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wf ro m aD ec isi on of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 22 , 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The pe titioners abandone d any argument relating to the de nial o f re l i ef pursuant to the 1 United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd other Cruel, Inhumane, and De g radingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”) by failingto raise a

n argument on this iss ue i n t heir brie f on appe al. See Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003).

2 Jaim e E duardo Delgado (“ De lgado”) and Nubia Pam ela Riveros (“ Riveros”) (collectively

“ Petitioners”), husband and wife , are natives and citizens of Co lom bia , S . A . T he y

se ek r ev ie wof

the or de r of

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion Appe al s ( “ BI A ”) a ff

irm ing the de ci sio n of

an I m m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”) de ny ing the ir appl ic at ion s f

or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ion an d N at ion al ity

A ct ( “ IN A ”) . P et iti one rs a ske d f or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of 1 re m ova l onthe ba sis of

D el ga do’ s r el igi on, pol iti ca l op ini on, and m em be rs hip in a particular social group. S pecifically , they assert that D elgado was a m em ber of a religious g roup called “ Pocalana” that opp osed the gu erillas, and that he was thr eate ne d onse ve ra l oc ca sio ns and b eate n w ithahandgun onone oc ca sio n. T he G ove rn m en t r es pond s th at ( 1) w e do n ot h av e j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe de nia l of Pe tit ion er s’ a sy lum

appl ic at ionbe ca

use the BI Ade te rm ine d th at the ir a sy lum ap pli catio n w as ti m e- barr ed and ( 2) the c la im

f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l l ac ks m eri t. Be ca

use P et iti one rs ’ r em ova l pr oc ee din gs c om m en ce d a ft er

Apr il 1, 199 7, the pe rm an en t r

ule s of the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ionRe fo rm

and I m m igr an t3

Responsib ility

Ac t of 1996, Pub. L . N o. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (199 6), govern the ir pe tit ionf or r ev ie w . Whe n th e BI Aiss ue s ase parate de ci sio n, w e re vie wonl y t h at d ec i s i o n , “ ex ce p tt o th e e x t en tth at [t h e B IA ] ex p re s s l y ad o p t s th e I J ’s opin ion.” Re y es-Sanchez v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 369 F.3d 1239 , 1242 (11th Cir. 2004 ). W e ad dr es s P et iti one rs ’ c la im s f or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l i n tur n. I. The INAprovides th at an asy lum application m

ust be filed within one y ear of the aliens arr ival in the United States. IN A § 208(a)( 2)(B) , 8 U .S .C. § 115 8(a)( 2)(B) . The INAalso provid es that an untim ely asy lum application m ay be considered “ if the alien dem onstrates to the satisfaction o f the A ttorney Ge neral ei the r the e xis te nc e of

c hange d c ir cum stanc es w hic h m at er ia lly a ff ec t the ap pli cant’ s e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum or e xtr ao rd inary

c ir cum stanc es r el at ing to the de la y in fil in g a n app li cat io n . . . .” INA § 2 08 (a)( 2) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D). T he I N A e xpr es sly

pr ovi de s th at

“ [n ] o c ourt sh al l have j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wany de te rm in at io n o f th e Att orne y Gene ral un de r pa rag rap h (2 )” o f INA § 2 08 (a), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) . I N A § 20 8( a) (3 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (3 ). F urthe rm or e, w e ha ve he ld tha t, “ [p ] ur suant t o 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (3 ), the A tto rn ey G en er al ’ s de ci sio n regarding whether an alien com plied with the one-y ear tim e lim it or established4

ex tr ao rd inary

c ir cum stanc es , suc h th at the ti m e lim it shou ld b e w ai ve d, is not re vie w ab le by

any c ourt. ” F ah im

v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 278 F . 3d 1 216, 121 7 (11th Cir. 2002). Ba se d up on the langua ge of I N A § 20 8( a) (3 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (3 ), and upon our decision in Fahim , 278 F. 3d at 121 7, w e lack j urisdictio n to consi der Pe tit ion er s’ a sy lum

c la im s. W e the re fo re dis m iss the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wa s to tho se c la im s. II. T he BI A ’ s f

ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is not

e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of rem ov al m

us t b e uph el d i f it is supp or te d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See Al N aj j ar v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 3- 84 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . “ T his m eans that we m

ust affirm the BIA ’ s decision if it is su pported byrea sonable, subs tantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” I d. at 1284 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). T his te st i s “ hig hly de fe re nti al , and . . . w e m ust de fe r to the BI A unl es s a

r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have to co nc lud e that the r equis ite fearof p ers ecu ti on ex is te d.” Id. (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . A n a lie n is e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l un de r the I N A if he c ansho w that hi s li fe or

f re ed om w oul d be thr eate ne d ona cc ount of r ac e, r el igi on, na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p i n a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.5

Me ndoz a v. U . S. A tto rn ey G en . , 327 F . 3d 1 283, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . S ee a lso IN A § 24 1( b) (3 ), 8 U . S. C. § 12 31( b) (3 ). T he a lie n be ar s th e bur de n of dem onstrating that it is “ m ore likely than not” he will be persecuted or tortured up on be in g re tu rn edto hi s co un try. Fahi m , 27 8 F .3dat 1 21 8. W e co nc lud e that su

bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the BI A ’ s de te rm inatio n that P et iti one rs f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t i t i s m or e lik el y than no t tha t D el ga do w ill be persecuted if r eturned to Colom bia. E xcept for one incident, his alleged pe rs ec uto rs did

not ide nti fy the m se lve s a s gu er ill as . A nd a s f or that i nc ide nt, it

is unclear w hether it wa s related to his religious or political activities. H e continued his religiou s and poli tical activities notwithstand ing several threats. Finally , he adm itt ed that hi s f am ily sti ll liv es in Co lom

bia , and w iththe e xc ep tio n of one isolated incid ent in which his broth er w as beaten because of his form er m ilitary se rv ic e, hi s fa m il y

ha s h adno co nf

li ct s wi th th e g ue ril la s. PE T IT IO N D IS MI SS E D , in part ; D E N IE D , in part .