FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 23, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12873 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 96- 277- 552 & A 76- 002- 467 J O R G E J . S I N I S T E R R A , J U L I A R . S I N I S T E R R A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r23, 2005)

B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i one r s J or ge J . S i ni s t e rr aa nd J ul i aR . S i ni s t e rr a , both na t i ve s a nd ci t i zen s o f C o l o m b i a p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ (B IA ’ s) d eci si o n ad o p t i n g i n p artan d affi rm i n g th e Im m i g rat i o n Ju d g e’ s (IJ’ s) r e m ova l or de rand de ni a l of a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( I N A ) a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on on T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntor P un i shm ent(C A T ). In thei r pet i t i on for r evi ew , the pet i t i on er s argue the B IA erre d i n fi nd i ng thei r a sy l um appl i ca t i on w as t i m e- barr ed, spec i fi ca l l y a ss ert i ng changed ci rc um st ance s i n C ol om bi a and the extra ordi naryci rc um st ance of bo th p et i t i on er s be i ng de a f

a nd m ut e c ons t i tut e c ondi t i ons unde rw hi c h the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on shou l d h ave been consi dere d. T he re m ai nd erof the pet i t i on for r evi ew chal l enges the B IA ’ s orderdenyi ng re l i ef t o D ani el S i ni st erra , Jorge S i ni st erra ’ s brother, w ho se ca se w as consol i dat ed w i th the pet i t i on er s’ ca se before the IJ , bu tw ho w as n o t n a m e d in th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . I . DI S C US S I ON A. Ju risd i ct i o n to revi ew th e B IA ’s den i a l o f rel i ef to D a n i el

S i n isterra W e “‘a r e o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ’ ” Cadet v. B ul ger , 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 2004) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

a n a ge nc y or de ri s r e gul a t e d by R ul e 15 of

the F e de r a l R ul e s of

A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e , w hi c h pr ovi de s , i n r e l e va nt3

p a rt, th a t th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w m u s t “n a m e e a c h p a rtys e e k in g r e v ie w e ith e rin the c apt i on orthe body of the pe t i t i on–us i ng s uc h t e rm s a s ‘ e ta l . , ’ ‘ pe t i t i one r s , ’ or

‘ r e s p o n d e n t s ’ d o e s n o te f f e c t i v e l y n a me th e p a rt i e s . . . . ” Fe d . R. A p p . P. 15 (a )( 2)(A ). T he advi sorycom m i tt ee no t es for thi s rul e e xp l ai n that“ R ul e 15(a) do es no tal l ow . . . fl exi bi l i ty; ea ch pet i t i on erm ustbe nam ed. A pet i t i on for r evi ew of a n a ge nc y de c i s i on i s the f i r s tf i l i ng i n a ny c ourta nd, the r e f or e , i s a na l ogous t o a com pl ai nti n w hi ch al l part i es m ustbe nam ed. ” F ed. R . A pp . P . 15 , advi sory co m m i tt ee n o t e, 1 9 9 3 am en d m en t s. M o st o f th e p etit io n er s’ ar g u m en t i n th is ca se is a c h allen g e to th e B IA ’s order denyi ng re l i ef

t o D ani el S i ni st erra . H ow ever , D ani el S i ni st errai s notnam ed in th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . F i rst , th e b o d y o f th e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew st at es “ Jo rg e J. S i ni s t e rr aa nd hi s w i f

e ” ar e s ubm i tt i ng thi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . S e c ond, the c apt i on n a me s “ J o r g e J . Si n i s t e rr a , e ta l . , ” b u tth i s d e s i g n a t i o n d o e s n o te f f e c t i v e l y n a me D a ni e l S i ni s t e rr a . F e d. R . A pp. P 15( a ) ( 2) ( A ) . M or e ove r , the c apt i on onl y l i s t s the a l i e n r e g i s tr a t i o n n u m b e r s f o rJ o r g e a n d J u l i aS i n i s t e rr a . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c onc l ude w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w D a ni e l S i ni s t e rr a ’ s c l a i m s f orr e l i e f a nd di sm i ss the pet i t i on for r evi ew t o the ext enti tse eks r evi ew of the B IA ’ s order denyi ng re l i ef

t o D ani el S i ni st erra .4

B . J u r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s de n ia l o

f th e p e titio n e rs ’a s

y lu m c la im A n a s y l um appl i c a t i on m us tbe “ f i l e d w i thi n 1 y e a ra f

t e rthe da t e of

the a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . A n u n tim e ly appl i c a t i on “ m a y be c ons i de r e d . . . i f the a l i e n de m ons tr a t e s . . . e i the rthe ex isten ce o f c h an g ed circ u m stan ce s w h ich m ater iall y a ff ec t th e ap p li ca n t’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the de l a y i n f i l i ng an appl i ca t i on . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2)( D ). T he det erm i nat i on of w hether an al i en can app l y f

or as yl um , ho w ever , i s l ef texcl usi vel y t o the A tt orney G ener al as

“ [n] o cou rtshal l have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any det erm i nat i on of the A tt orney G e n e r a l u n d e rp a r a g r ap h ( 2 ) .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) ; see a l so Me ndoz a v . U

. S. A t torne yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3)

“ di vest s our C ou rtof j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a dec i si on re gardi ng w hether an al i en com pl i ed w i th the on e- ye art i m e l i m i tor es t abl i shed extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s thatw ou l d excuse hi s unt i m el y f i l i ng ”) . W e r ec ent l y hel d thi s j uri sdi ct i on al bar s t i l l appl i e s a f

t e rthe e na c tm e ntof

the R e a l I D A c tof

2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 . See Chac on- B ote r o v . U . S. A t torne

yG e n. , 4 2 7 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . T hus , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of the pet i t i on er s’ as yl um appl i ca t i on as t i m e- barr ed, and d i sm i ss the pet i t i on for r evi ew t o th e e x t e n ti ts e e k s s u c h r e v i e w.5

C . Wi th h o ld i n go

f r e mo v a l a n d p r o te c t i o n u n de rth e CA T “W h e n a n ap p e lla n t f

a ils to o f f e ra r g u m e n t o n a n is s u e , th a t is s u e is abando ned. ” Se

pulv e da v . U

. S. A t torne

yG e n. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 2005) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the de ni a l of the P e t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i ons f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd f orpr ot e c t i on unde rthe C A T , but w e c onc l ude the P e t i t i one r s ha ve aba ndone d the s e c l a i m s by f a i l i ng t o pr e s e nta ny a r g u m e n t o n th e s e is s u e s in th e irp e titio n f o rr e v ie w . See i d. A s n o t ed ab o v e, m o st of the pet i t i on for r evi ew i s achal l enge t o the B IA ’ s deni al of re l i ef t o D ani el S i ni st erra . T he P et i t i on er s f ai l ed t o p re se ntany argum entconcerni ng w hether they m e t th e irb u r d e n o f

p r o v in g it w a s m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th e y w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d if th e y r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia , o rw h e th e rth e y w o u ld b e to rtu r e d u p o n th e irr e tu rn . A c c or di ngl y , w e hol d the P e t i t i one r s aba ndone d the i rc l a i m s f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd f orpr ot e c t i on unde rthe C A T a nd de ny the pe t i t i on f or rev i ew as t o th ese i ssu es. I I . C ON C L US I ON W e c onc l ude w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the P e t i t i one r s ’ c l a i m f or a s y l um , a nd the P e t i t i one r s ha ve aba ndone d the i rc l a i m s f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C A T . A c c or di ngl y , the pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w is d is m is s e d in p a rt, a n d d e n ie d in p a rt. PE TI TI ON DI SM I SS ED I N PART, AN D D ENI ED I N PART.