FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 6, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 04- 16422 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 95- 551- 171 L U I S F E RN A N D O C H A C O N - B O T E R O , 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

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( O c t obe r6, 2005)

B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Be causeChacon-B otero’s a sylum procee dings c ommenced after A pril 1, 1997, the 1 perma nent rules of

the Illeg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S t at . 3 0 0 9 , a pp ly. On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 2 2002 (HSA), Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The HSA created a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security

(DHS), a bolished the I

NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new depa rtment. B e c a

us ethi s c a sewa s initi ate d whil etheI NS w a s stillin existenc e , h ow e ver, thi s op ini on re fersto t

heag ency a s th eI NS rather t

ha n th eDH S. 2 C ol om bi a n na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n L ui s F e rna ndo C ha c on- B ot e r o pe t i t i ons f or r e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( B I A ’ s ) de c i s i on a dopt i ng a nd a f f irm in g th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( I J ’s ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is c la im f o ra s y lu m , 8 U . S . C . § 1158, w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , unde rthe 1 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 hi s c l a i m f orpr ot e c t i on unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i on’ s C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, or D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( C A T ) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . W e di s m i s s the p e titio n in p a r t, a n d d e n y in p a r t. I . B AC KG R OU ND C h a c o n - B o te r o a rr iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s o n A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 0 , w ith autho ri za t i on t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t at es for at em po raryperi od no tt o exceed N ove m be r20, 2000. H e r e m a i ne d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be y ond N ove m be r20, 20 00 , w i tho utperm i ss i on fr om the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (I N S ). 2 C hacon-B ot er o fi l ed an appl i ca t i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the I N A on M a y 28, 2002. H e a c know l e dge d he w a s f i l i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f

or3

a s y lu m m o r e th a n o n e y e a ra f te rh is a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s , b u t f a ile d to e xpl a i n w hy he di d notf i l e a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on w i thi n the f i r s ty e a ra f

t e rhe a rr iv e d . D ur i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs i n f r ontof a n I J , C ha c on- B ot e r o a dm i tt e d the a lle g a tio n s o f

f a c t, c o n c e d e d th e c h a r g e o f r e m o v ab ility a s s e t f

o r th in th e n o tic e to appe a r , a nd r e que s t e d a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C A T . T he IJcont i nu ed the heari ng af t erfi nd i ng the charge of r em ov abi l i ty w as es tab li sh ed b y c learan d co n v in cin g ev id en ce an d p o in ti n g o u t C h ac o n -B o tero ’s asyl u m ap p l i cat i o n w as u n t i m el y. D u r in g ala te rr e m o v a l h e a r in g , C h a c o n - B o te r o te s tif ie d h e h a d n o t f

ile d h is a s y l um appl i c a t i on w i thi n one y e a ra f t e ra rr i vi ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be c aus e he had w ant ed t o return t o C ol om bi a. A dd i t i on al l y, C hacon-B ot er o cl ai m ed he w as “m is in f o rm e d ” b y h is p r e v io u s a tto rn e y w h o a d v is e d h im h is o n ly r e m e d y w a s to appl y f or a l abor cert i fi ca t i on . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , ho w ever , C hacon-B ot er o a dm i tt e d he “ ne ve rm a de a n a gr e e m e ntw i th [ hi s f orm e ra tt orne y ] ba s e d on po l i t i ca l as yl um . ” A tthe c onc l us i on of

the he a r i ng, the I J a s ke d C ha c on- B ot e r o w he the rhe i n f o rme d h i s p r e v i o u s a tt o rn e y h e w a s p e r s e c u t e d i n Co l o mb i ab y th e FA RC gu er i l l as . C hacon-B ot er o res po nd ed he i nform ed hi s f orm eratt orney he w as thr e a t e ne d i n C ol om bi a , buthe ne ve re xpl i c i t l y a gr e e d w i th the a tt orne y tha the4

w a nt e d t o appl y f

ora s y l um be c aus e he be l i e ve d hi s a tt orne y w oul d a dvi s e hi m on the m att er . F ol l ow i ng the heari ng , C hacon-B ot er o sub m i tt ed an aff i davi ti n w hi ch h e e x p la in e d : ( 1 ) h e d id n o t f ile f o ra s y lu m d u r in g th e y e a rf o llo w in g h is a rr iv a l in th e U n i t ed S t at es b ecau se h e “ h ad ev ery i n t en t i o n o f g o i n g b ack t o [h i s] co u n try, C ol om bi a; ho w ever , the si tuat i on di d n otal l ow [hi m ] t o d o so; ” ( 2) an att orney

“ s ugge s t e d tha tthe onl y pr oc e s s [ he ] c oul d f ol l ow w a s ” the l aborc e r t i f i c a t i on proces s, and (3) he “ di d n otkn ow that[he] w as capabl e of f i l i ng for pol i t i ca l as yl um . ” A f t e rt a ki ng i nt o c ons i de r a t i on C ha c on- B ot e r o’ s t e s t i m ony , a s w e l l a s the d o cu m en tary ev id en ce , th e I J r en d er ed an o ra l d ec isio n d en yin g C h ac o n -B o tero ’s ap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a n d p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C A T . T he IJfoun d C hacon-B ot er o’ s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um w as st atut ori l y t i m e- barr ed be c aus e C ha c on- B ot e r o di d notf i l e i tw i thi n one y e a ra f

t e rhi s e ntry i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es and h e di d n otshow exce pt i on al or extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s w hi c h j us t i f

i e d ade l a y i n f

i l i ng. N e ve r the l e s s , the I J w e nton t o a ddr e s s the u n d erl yi n g m eri t s o f C h aco n -B o t ero ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r asyl u m , fi n d i n g b ecau se C h a c o n - B o te r o ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le o rs u f f ic ie n tly d e ta ile d , h e f

a ile d to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n in C ol om bi a . L i ke w i s e , be c aus e of the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n hi s appl i c a t i on a nd5

t e s t i m ony , the I J c onc l ude d C ha c on- B ot e r o f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of e s tab lis h in g e lig ib ility f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n d p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C A T . C hacon-B ot er o t i m el y app ea l ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on t o the B IA . T he B IA a dopt e d a nd a f

f i rm e d the de c i s i on of

the I J . T he B I A a gr e e d w i th the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tC ha c on- B ot e r o f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s f

i l e d w i thi n one y e a ra f

t e rhi s a rr i va l i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s ortha the fe l l w i thi n an except i on t o the deadl i ne. T he B IA further a gree d w i th the IJthat C h a c o n - B o te r o d id n o t m e e t h is b u r d e n s o f p r o o f w ith r e s p e c t to th e r e lie f s o u g h t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e B I A d is m is s e d th e ap p e a l. I I . DI S C US S I ON W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e x te n t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a d o p ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 257 F . 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . “ I n s o f a ra s th e [ B I A] a d o p t s th e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g , we w i l l re vi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on as w el l . ” I d. H er e, th e B IA ex p re ss ly ad o p ted th e I J’s r e a s oni ng a nd br i e f

l y a r t i c ul a t e d i t s r e a s ons f ordoi ng s o. T hus , w e r e vi e w the d e c is io n s o f

b o th th e I J a n d th e B I A . T hi s C our ti s “ ‘ obl i ga t e d t o i nqui r e i nt o s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on s ua spon t e w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ’ ” C adet v. B ul ger , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A n asy l um appl i ca t i on m ustbe “ fi l ed w i thi n 1 ye ar a f te rth e d a te o f

th e 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 ) .6

A n u n tim e ly ap p lic a tio n “m a y b e c o n s id e r e d . . . if th e a lie n d e m o n s tr a te s . . . e i the rthe e xi s t e nc e of

c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c tthe appl i c a nt ’ 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 a n appl i c a t i on . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . T he de t e rm i na t i on of w he the ra n a l i e n c a n appl y f ora s y l um , how e ve r , i s l e f te xc l us i ve l y t o the A tt orne y G e ne r a l , a nd “ [ n] o c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny de t e rm i na t i on of

the A tt orne y G e ne r a l ” r e ga r di ng t i m e l i ne s s of the a s y l um ap p lic a tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) ; s e e al s o Me ndoz a v . U

. S. A t torne

y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( no t i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (3) “ di vest s our C ou rt of j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w ade c i s i on r e ga r di ng w he the ra n a l i e n c om pl i e d w i th the o n e-year ti m e l i m i to r est ab l i sh ed ex trao rd i n ary ci rcu m st an ces th atw o u l d ex cu se hi s unt i m el y f

i l i ng ”) . O n M a y 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , P r e s id e n t B u s h s ig n e d in to la w th e R e a l I D A c t o f 2 0 0 5 . P ub . L . N o. 10 9-13 , 11 9 S t at . 23 1. S ec t i on 10 6(a) (1)( A )( i i i ) of the R ea l ID A ct am ends 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2 b y a dd i ng a new prov i si on , § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ), w hi ch p r o v id e s in p e r tin e n t p a r t: ( D ) J U D I C I A L R E V I E W O F C E R T A I N L E G A L C L A I M S . – N o th in g in s u b p a r a g r ap h ( B ) o r( C ) , o rin a n y o th e rp r o v is io n o f th is Ac t( o th e rth a n th i s s e c t i o n ) wh i c h l i m i t s o re l i m i n a t e s j u d i c i a l r e v i e w, s ha l l be c ons true d a s pr e c l udi ng r e vi e w of c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s or qu es t i on s of l aw ra i se d u po n a pet i t i on for r evi ew fi l ed w i th an appr opr i a t e c our tof

appe a l s i n a c c or danc e w i th thi s s e c t i on.7

R E A L I D A c t o f

2 0 0 5 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , § 1 0 6 ( a ) , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 1 0 . F ur the rm or e , S e c t i on 106( a ) of the R e a l I D A c tt ook e f f e c ton the da t e of e na c tm e nta nd appl i e s t o c a s e s i n w hi c h the f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l , de por t a t i on, or e x c lu s io n w a s is s u e d b e f o r e , o n , o ra f

te rth e d a te o f

th e e n a c tm e n t. See R ea l ID A c t § 1 0 6 ( b ) . T h e r e f

o r e , § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , a s a d d e d b y th e R e a l I D A c t, ap p lie s to th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. U nd erou r e xi st i ng prec edent , deci ded b ef ore the enactm entof the R ea l ID A c t, w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth e I J ’s u n tim e lin e s s ru lin g . See Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287. W e ha ve nota ddr e s s e d thi s i s s ue s i nc e the e na c tm e nt of the R e a l I D A c t . T he S e ve nth C i r c ui t , how e ve r , r e c e nt l y he l d i tc oul d not r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of ape t i t i one r ’ s unt i m e l y a s y l um c l a i m “ e ve n i n l i ghtof the c ha nge s i n the j udi c i a l r e vi e w pr ovi s i ons c ont a i ne d i n the R e a l I D A c tof 20 05 . ” V

a s ile v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 7 F .3 d 7 6 6 , 7 6 8 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e S e v e n th C i rc ui tre as on ed thatno tw i thst andi ng § 1 06 (a ) of the A ct , “ di sc re t i on ary or f ac tual d e te rm in a tio n s c o n tin u e to f a ll o u ts id e th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e c o u r t o f

ap p e a ls ent ert ai ni ng a pet i t i on for r evi ew . ” I d. T h u s , th e tim e lin e s s is s u e s till f its s q u a r e ly w ith in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) w h ic h s a y s “[ n ]o c o u r t s h a ll h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew any det erm i nat i on of the A tt orney G ener al un der para graph (2). ” I d. W e a gree w i th the S eventh C i rc ui t ’ s c on cl usi on and h ol d w e c anno tre vi ew the I J ’ s a nd B I A ’ s de ni a l of C ha c on- B ot e r o’ s a s y l um c l a i m , e ve n c ons i de r i ng theThis c a seis distinguis ha blefrom Balogun v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , No. 04-12507, 04- 3 14496, 2005 WL2333840 (11th Cir., Sept. 26, 2005). In Balogun , we co n clu d edth atal th o ugh we did not havejurisdiction to do so i n the past, af ter the enactment of

the Real ID Act “we have jurisdiction to decide in a petition for reviewproce edingwhether the B IA er

red in determining that a petitioner’ s conviction is an ag gravated fe lony within the meaningof 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).” In contra st to thi s case , Balogun presented a que stion of law covered by the Real ID Act’ s chang es. As to Chacon-B otero’s petition for reviewof the denial of his withholding of removal 4 and CAT claims, we conc lude that substantial evidenc e supports the IJ ’s and B IA’s denial of those claims. See Sanchez v. U .S. Attorney Gen. , 392 F.3d 434, 438 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (holding a n alien must show it is m ore likely than not he will be torture d in his home country at the hands of the g overnment to demonstrate elig ibility for CAT protection); Mend oza , 327 F.3d at 1287 (notingan alien mu st s ho w h emorelike ly tha n n ot w ould b epers e cute d o r tor ture d u po n his retur n tothec ountr

y in q ue sti on to de mon stratee ligibi lity fo r withho ldingof

remov al) . Thu s, we deny his petition as to the denial of his withholding of removal and CAT c laims. 8 c h a n g e s in th e R e a l I D A c t. T h e tim e lin e s s o f a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n is n o t a co n st i tu t i o n al cl ai m o r q u est i o n o f l aw co v ered b y th e R eal ID A ct ’ s ch an g es. 3 T hus , w e a dhe r e t o oure xi s t i ng pr e c e de nttha t8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) “ di ve s t s our C o u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w ad e c is io n r e g a r d in g w h e th e ra n a lie n c o m p lie d w ith th e o n e - y e a rtim e lim it o re s tab lis h e d e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld e x c u s e h is u n tim e ly f

ilin g .” Men do za , 327 F . 3d a t1287. W e di s m i s s C ha c onB ot e r o’ s pe t i t i on a s t o hi s a s y l um c l a i m f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. 4 PE TI TI ON DI SM I SS ED I N PART AND DENI ED I N PART.