N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN DOE, Pe titione r, v. ALB ER TO R . GONZALES, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, Re sponde nt. No. 03-74206 Age n c y No. A77-131-859 AM ENDED M EM O R ANDUM *

JOHN DOE, Pe titione r, v. ALB ER TO R . GONZALES, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, Re sponde nt. No. 05-72434 Age n c y No. A77-131-859

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 16, 2007 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia File d April 9, 2017 Am e nde d Ja

nua ry 24, 2017 B e fore : GOULD a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C OVELLO *** , Distric t Judge . John Doe , a

native of Iran a

nd a c itiz e n of Ge rm any , pe t itions for re vie w of two se pa ra te de c isions of the

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). In No. 03- 74206, Doepe titions for re v ie w of the B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r de ny ing his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, and c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l. In No. 05-72434, Doe pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion a sking theB IA to re ope n a nd re c onside r its de c ision a ffirm ing the IJ in No. 03-74206. 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Doe la st e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on Nove m be r 19, 1997, a s a nonim m igra nt stude nt with a

ut horiz ation to a

tte n d the C om

m unity C olle ge of

** This pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

b le for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Alfre d V. C ove llo, Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C onne c tic ut, sitting by de signa tion. 1 B e c a u se the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we do not re sta t e the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our disposition. 2Southe rn Ne va da , in La s Ve ga s, Ne va da . On or a bout Ja nua ry 7, 2000, the form e r Im m i gration a

n d Natura liz at i on Se rvic e (“ INS” ) issue d a notic e to a

ppe ar (“NTA” ) c ha rging Doe a s re m ova

ble unde r se c tions 212(a

)(6)(I), 237(a )(1)(A), and 237(a )(1)(C )(I) of the Im

m igrat ion a

n d Nationa l ity

Ac t (“ INA” ). Doe sought re lie f in the form

of c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l unde r INA § 240A(b)(2), theso-c a lle d Spe c ia l R ule B atte re d Spouse /C hild provisions of the INA, a lso known a s the Viole n c e Aga inst W om e n Ac t provisions. He a lso file d an a p plic ation se e k ing a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). On Se pte m

be r 18, 2002, the

IJ issue d a

re vise d de c ision c onc luding tha t Doe wa s re m ova

ble unde r INA § 237(a )(1)(C ) for fa ilure to c o m p ly with the te rm s of his nonim m igra nt stude nt visa . The IJ a lso de n ie d Doe ’ s a pplic ations for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l un de r INA § 240A(b)(2), for a sy l um , for withholding of re m ova l, a

nd for prote c tion unde r the C AT. On Oc tobe r 23, 2003, the B IA issue d a de c ision a ffirm ing the IJ a nd dismissing Doe ’ s a

ppe a l. During the

pe n de nc y

of his pe tition for re vie w in No. 03-74206, Doe file d a m otion to re ope n

and re c o nside r on De c e m

be r 14, 2004, be fore the B IA. Noting tha t his m otion wa s untim e l y , the B IA de c line d to e xe rc i se its disc re tion sua sponte to re ope n a nd

3re c o nside r Doe ’ s c a se and de nie d his m o tion. Thepe tition for re vie w in No. 05-

72434 followe d. Doe argue s in No. 03-74206 tha t we should gra

nt his pe tition for re v ie w a nd re m and his c a se to the B IA with instruc tions to gra n t him c anc e lla tion of re m ova l unde r INA § 240A(b)(2), a s we ll a s withholding of re m ova l . Spe c ific a l ly , he argue s tha

t the B IA viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights when the B IA a ffirm e d the de nia l of his a

p plic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r INA § 240A(b)(2) be c a use the de nia l wa s ba se d upon te stim o ny by pe titione r’ s a lle ge dly a

busive spouse an d be c a

u s e the B IA inc orre c tly

a pplie d the re l e va

nt le ga l sta

nda rds whe n it found tha t pe titione r’ s re m ova l would not re sult in e x tre m e ha rdship. 2 Doe , howe v e r, did not ra i se e i the r of the se due proc e ss c la im s be fore the B IA on a ppe a l, and ha s fa ile d

to e xha ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e d i e s with re spe c t to thosec la im s. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha t unde r the INA this “ c ourt m ay

re v ie w a fina l orde r of re m ova l only if . . . thea lie n ha s e xha uste d a ll a dm i n istra

tive re m e die s a

va ila ble to the a lie n a s a

m atte r of right.” ); se e a lso INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1). The re fore , we la c k jurisdic tion

2 Due proc e s s c ha lle n ge s to fina l orde rs of re m ova l a re re vie we d de novo. Se e Sanc h e

z-C ruz v . IN S , 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th C ir. 2001) (c iting C olme nar v . IN S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C i r. 2000)). 4to re vie w Doe ’ s due proc e ss c la im s, a nd his pe t ition for re vie w in No. 03-74206 with re spe c t to thosec l a im s is dism isse d. Se e Barron , 358 F.3d a t 677-78. In a ddition, Doe

argue s tha

t the e v ide nc e in the re c ord c om p e ls a c ontra

ry re sult from

the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t pe t itione r did not de m onstra te e xtre m e m e nta l c rue lty

unde r INA § 240A(b)(2). 3 The re is substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c o rd to support the

B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s c onc lusions tha

t Doe did not de m onstra

te e xtre m e m e nta l c rue lty . The re is not suffic ie n t e vide nc e in this c a s e to c om pe l the oppositec onc lusion. Se e IN S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); se e also Singh v. IN

S , 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th C ir. 1998). W e de ny Doe ’ s pe tition for re vie w in No. 03-74206 with re spe c t to this c la i m . Doe a lso c onte nds tha

t the B IA e rre d whe n

it de te rm ine d

tha t pe titione r did not de m onstra

te pa st pe rse c ution a

nd de nie d his a pplic ations for a sy lum

and

3 Fa c t ua l de te rm inat ions re ga

rding a pe titione r’ s e ligibility

for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, or c anc e lla tion of re m ova l unde r the INA a re re vie we d unde r the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd. Tha t is, “ a dm i nistra

tive findings of fa c t are c onc lusive unle ss a

ny re a sona

ble a djudic ator would be c om pe lle d to c o nc lude to the c ontra

ry .” INA § 242(b)(4)(B ), 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); s e e also RamosVasque z v . IN S, 57 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C ir. 1995). To re v e rse the B IA’ s findings, we m ust find tha

t the e vide nc e “ not only

supports the

opposite c onc lusion, but c om pe ls it.” IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); se ealso Singh v. IN S , 134 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C i r. 1998). W he re , a s he re , the B IA “ a dopts theIJ’ s de c ision while a d d ing its own re a sons, we re vie w both de c isions.” K ataria v . IN

S , 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th C ir. 2000). 5withholding of rem o v a l. 4 B oth the B IA and the IJ found pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ) 5 tha

t Doe ’ s Nove m

be r 4, 2000, a

pplic ation for a sy l um

wa s untim e ly file d sinc e he ha d la st e nte re d the Unite d State s on Nove m be r 19, 1997. TheB IA furthe r found tha

t no c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s suc h a s m ight e xc use the untim e l y

filing e xiste d. 6 W e have jurisdic tion to re v ie w the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t no “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

n c e s ” e xc use d Doe ’ s untim e ly filing of his a pplic ation for a sy lum . Se e Ramadan v . Gonzale s , - - F.3d - -, 2007 WL 528715 (9th C ir. Fe b . 22, 2007). Doe ’ s c ha l le nge to the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Doe fa ile d to show c ha

nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s is a re vie w a ble m ixe d que stion of la

w a nd fa c t. Se e id. He re , the fa c tua l ba sis of Doe ’ s pe tition is undispute d; we only re vie w whe the r

4 Doe ha s not c ha lle nge d the B IA’ s de nia l of his a p plic ation for re lie f unde r the C AT. Ac c ordingly , he ha s wa ive d his right to cha lle nge the de nia l of suc h re lie f. Se e

, e .g., Me ndoza v . Bloc k, 27 F.3d 1357, 1363 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ Fa ilure to ra ise an issue on a

ppe a l re sults in waive r of tha t issue .” ); se e also United State s v . K imble , 107 F.3d 712, 715 n.2 (9th C ir. 1997). 5 “ Any a l ie n” m ay a

p p ly for a sy lum , se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(1), provide d tha t the a lie n “ de m o nstra

te s by c le ar a nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the a pplic at ion ha s be e n file d within 1 y e ar a fte r the date of the a l ie n’ s arriva l in theUnite d State s.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a)(2)(B ).

6 An a pplic ation for a s y lum

m ay be c o nside re d a fte r the one -y e a r tim e pe riod, howe ve r, “ if the a l ie n de m onstra te s to thesatisfa c tion of theAttorne y Ge ne ra l e ithe r the e x iste n c e of c ha nge d c irc um sta

n c e s whic h m ate ria lly

a ffe c t the a pplic ant’ s e ligibility for a sy lum or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s re lating to the de la y in filing a

n a pplic ation . . . .”8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D). 6the B IA a

ppropria te ly d e te rm ine d tha

t the fa c t s did not c onstitute “ c ha nge d c irc um s ta nc e s whic h m ate ria l ly

a ffe c t[e d Doe ’ s] e ligibility for a sy l um

or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s re lating to the

de la y in filing a

n a pplic ation . . . .”8 U.S.C . § 1158(a)(2)(D); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 208.4(a)(4)(I) (listing e xam ple s of

“ c h ange d c irc um sta

nc e s . . . m ate ria lly

a ffe c ting thea

pplic ant’ s e ligibility

for a sy lum ” ); 8 C .F.R . § 208.4(a)(5) (listing e x a m p le s of “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s . . . dire c tly

re late d to thefa ilure to m e e t the one -y e ar de a dline ” ). He re , the re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Doe ha s shown e ithe r c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s suc h tha

t his a sy lum

a pplic ation should ha

ve be e n c onside re d notwithsta

nding its la

te filing. Se e ge ne rally

id. Ac c ordingly , we de ny the p e tition for re v i e w of the B IA’ s orde r dism i ssing Doe ’ s a pplic at ion for a sy lum . W e a lso ha

ve jurisdic tion to re vie w Doe ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t substa n tia l e vide nc e in the re c ord c om pe ls a finding tha

t Doe de m onstra

te d both pa s t pe rse c ution a

nd a c l e ar proba

bility tha t he will suffe r future pe rse c ution, suc h tha t the B IA e rre d in de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l . He re , the e vide nc e is not “ so c om

p e lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c t finde r c o uld fa il to find the re quisitefe ar of pe rse c ution.” S e e Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. a t 483-84. Inde e d, the re c o rd c le arly

supports the

B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s de te rm inations tha t Doe fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d while in Ge rm any or tha t it wa s m ore like ly

tha n 7not tha

t he would be subje c t e d to future pe rse c ution in Germ any . W e de ny Doe ’ s pe tition for re vie w in No. 03-74206 with re spe c t to his c la i m

tha t the B IA e rre d in de ny ing his a

pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. In No. 05-72434, Doe

argue s tha

t the B IA a

buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing his m otion to re ope n

an d re c onside r. While we re v ie w m otions to re ope n a nd re c o nside r for a

b use of disc re tion, IN

S v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988); se e also C ano-Me rida v . IN

S , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 2002), we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to re ope n the proc e e dings sua

sponte unde r 8 C .F.R . § 3.2(a ). Se e Ek

imian v . IN

S , 303 F.3d 1153, 1154 (9th C ir. 2002). Ac c ordingly , Doe ’ s pe t ition for re vie w in No. 05-72434 is dism isse d. NO . 03-74206 DE NIE D IN PART AND DISM ISSE D IN PART ; NO . 05- 72434 DISM ISSE D.

8Doe

v . A shc roft

, Nos. 03-74206 and 05-72434 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing: I c onc ur in the re sult. 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS