NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0464n .06 Fi led : Ju ne 29, 2 007 06- 3318 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
DA N FLO RI N BORTAS, Pet itione r, v. ALBERTO GON ZAL ES, Uni ted S ta tes Atto rney General, Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N P E T I T I O N F O RR E V I E W OF AN ORDER OF T HE BOARD OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: RYAN, D AUGHT REY, and ROGERS, Circuit Jud ges. PER C UR IA M. The peti ti oner , D an F lor in Bor tas , s eeks rev iew

of a final o rd er

of
remo v al by the Board of Imm igration Appe als (BIA) tha t af f irmed the im migration jud ge’s deni al of Bort as’ s a ppl ic ati on for asy lum and w it hhol din g of re mov al under the Immig ra ti on and N ati onal ity

Act, 8 U .S.C . §§ 1158( a) and 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3) , and deni al of rel ief under the United Nations C onv ent ion Against T orture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 12 08. 16(c) and 120 8.1 8. Beca use the petitio ner’s asylum app lication was de nied as untim ely and beca use h e do es no t raise a v ali d s tatut or

y or co nst it uti onal cl aim re lat ing to thi s d eni al, w e lac k jur is dicti on to rev iew that por ti on of the BIA’ s o rd er . Mo re ov er , we c oncl ude t hat t he deni al of his appl ic ati on for
w it hhol din g of re mov al w as suppo rt ed by su bst anti al ev ide nce and, t h e re fo re , affirm the re mainde r of the order

.06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

Bor t as i ni t i al l yt est i f i ed t hat he had not i f i ed i m m i gr at i on a ut hor i t i es i m m edi a t e l yt hat he wi shed t o see k 1 asy l um butl at er r et r eat ed f r om t hi s asser t i on, say i ng i n r esponse t o quest i oni ng f r om t he i m m i gr at i on j udge t hat he had not soug ht per m i ssi on t o st ayi n t he co unt r yatt hat t i m e.

- 2 - Peti ti oner

Bor tas i s a R omanian n a ti o n al w ho i ll eg all y ente re d the U nit ed St ates thro u g h M e x i c o a n d wa s a r re s t e d b y I N S b o rd e r

p a t ro l a g e n t s o n F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 000. Des pit e hi s c lai m thathe was in detent ion for three weeks foll ow ing ar re st, the off ic ial re c o rd s indicat e tha t Borta s post ed a $5, 000 bon d and w as release d f rom custod y two days later, on February 24, 200 0. W hen the INS institut ed removal procee dings against 1 Bor tas , hi s couns el in dic ated that he planned to fil e an asy lum appl ic ati on. Howev er , w hen the first hear ing was conv ened in the immi g ra ti on cour t on Apr il 10, 2001, an appl ic ati on had noty et be en fil ed. The atto rn ey for t he g ov er nment po int ed out , i n r e sp onse to t he peti ti oner ’s req uestfor a co nti nuanc e, t hat B ortas had already missed the one- y ear deadl ine for fil ing an appl ic ati on for asy lum. As a re sul t, the i mmig ra ti on j udg e c onti nued the p ro ceedi ng s a nd i nst ru cte d Bor tas ’s attor ney

to address the is sue of timel ine ss i n the appl ic ati on. W hen the he aring resum ed o n Sep tem ber 25 , 2 0 0 1 , a n d Borta s subm itted his app lication for asyl um , the imm igration judge asked him to rev iew it fo r a c c u ra cy

before signing it. Bo rt as con f irmed thathe ha d be en o v er his app lication “line by li ne a nd word for word” and thatnoth ing need ed to be cha nged; h is attorne y conf irmed the sam e. In his ap pl i c at i on Bo rta s i nd i c at ed th at he h ad n ev er b efo re ap pl i ed for

refu g ee s ta tu s , as y l um , w it hhol din g o f d e p o r

t a t i o n , o r w i thhol din g of re mov al and ac know led g ed th at t he appl ic ati on06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

- 3 - w as be ing filed more than a y ear aft er his arriv al in the United Sta tes. H e explained this del ay by st a ti ng thathe “ thoug ht t hat h e had appl ied prev iou sl y w hil e det ain ed.” After re adi ng thi s s tatement , t he i mmig ra ti on j udg e as ked w hether Bor tas had ex p lai ned t he re ason for th e delay

in greater

detail anyw here in the doc ument. Bor tas ’s att or ney

repl ied that he had not.
In hi s a sy lum appl ic ati on, B ortas i ndi cat ed that he w as persec uted as the resul t of hisatt empt t o protect t he wor kers i n a s tate- o w ned mi ne i n R omania , w here he w as em ployed as a geologist, f rom the e f fects of radiation ema nat ing from mining ope ration s. He re por ted bei ng beat en up by se cur ity g uards from the mine on th re e oc cas ion s, li sti ng thes e i nci dents as oc cur ri ng i n D ecember 1998, Febr uar

y 1999, and Dec ember

2000, ev en tho ugh the latter w as an impo ssible da te in vi e w o f Bortas’s arriv al in this coun try in Febr uar y 2000. The appl ic ati on al so re flect ed th at after the thi rd i nci dent, Bor

tas l eft the mine area and mov ed to hi s mot her ’s home in nor theas ter n Romani a. He further i ndi cat ed in the a ppl ic ati on th at t he ar ri v al o f a t h re ateni ng l etter

at that address l ed hi m to fle e to Me x ic o and then, ni ne days l ater , t o the U nit ed St ates

. A rev iew of the p eti ti oner ’s tes ti mony at the A pr il 2001 hear ing rev eal s a ddi ti onal dis crepanc ies

. He sai d at that ti me, for ex ample, thatthe Romani an mi ne w here he had
worked had closed in 19 96 a n d t h a tt he a ttack listed in the ap plication as hap pen ing i n Decem ber 20 00 h ad a ctua lly occurred th ree y ears earlier, in Decem ber 199 7. Moreover, Bor tas tes ti fied th at he was physi cal ly attac ked onl y two ti mes, ra ther

than the three06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

- 4 - occ asi ons setout in the w ri tten appl ic ati on. W h e n the i mmig ra ti on j udg e i nq uired abou t thi s c ontradi cti on, B o rtas re pli ed th at t he th ird i nci dent w as merel y a v er bal att ack , nota physi cal att ack , in direct cont ra dicti on to the desc ri pti on in the a ppl ic ati on. Among othe r dis cre p a n cie s, the peti ti oner tes ti fied th at he had fled to hi s mot her ’s home i n 1997 and s t a y e d t h e re u n t il h e le f tRo m a n ia in 2 0 0 0

. As k e d wh y h e h a d wa it e d so lo n g t o le a ve Rom ania , Borta s answered, “I tri ed to f ind w ork so I stayed.”

The immi g ra ti on jud ge rej ect ed th e as y lum appl ic ati on as unti mely , findi ng tha t Borta s had the op portu nity to f ile a time ly app lication b u tfa il ed to do so. In h is deci si on, t he i mmig ra ti on j udg e al so re jected B ortas ’s att e m p t to j u sti fy the d ela y by all eg i ng t ha t he t ho ug hth e ha d fi l ed a n ap pl i c at i on w hi l e i n de te nt i on , fi nd i ng i ncredib le Bor tas ’s as ser

ti on th at he was detai ned for three weeks and conc lud ing that there w as no proof “t hat h e fil ed or

bel iev es that he file d a n []

. . . appl ic ati on dur ing hi s two days o f inc arcerati on.”
T he im migration jud ge fo und , in add ition, th at eve n i f B o rtas had f iled a tim ely appl icat io n fo r asy lum, i t woul d fail on t he mer it s b ecaus e Bor tas ’s tes ti mony

was not credible . Finally , the judge foun d tha t Borta s was ineligible for w ithho lding of remo v al, noti ng thatev en i f he had be en abl e to prov e pas t persec uti on, h e c oul d notes tabl ish a reaso nab le fear of

f u t u re persecu tion b ecau se “he ha [d] d em onst rated , throu gh his tes ti mony

. . . , that he coul d liv e w it h his mother in another

part of Romani a and not s uffer any persecut ion.”06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

- 5 - On ap peal to the B IA, Bor tas co ntended thathi s r ig ht t o due proces s h ad been
v iol ated, maki ng w hat w e find to be a compl etel y sp ur iou s a rg ument t hat t he i mmig ra ti on jud g e was “c lea rl y

. . . bi a se d t o wards R espon dent and hi s c lai m for as y lum. ” The BI A rejecte d Borta s’s due pro cess claim, f inding tha t he “failed to ci te i nsta nces o f miscon duct on th e par

t of the Immig ra ti on Judg e to suppo rtthe noti on th at t he dec is ion was based on anythi ng othe r than hisundersta ndi ng and know led ge o f the appl ic abl e l aws a nd re g ula ti ons and w h a t he adduc ed from h is par ti ci pati on i n the ca se. ” W it h reg ard to the under ly ing cl aims , t he BI A affirmed the i m m igra ti on j udg e’sdete rmi nati on th at t he peti ti oner ’s appl ic ati on had not b een t imel y fil ed and, furth er , t hat it did not q ual ify under one of the ex cept ion s t o the st atuto ry ti me-bar. The BIA als o aff ir med the immi g ra ti on jud g e’sdec is ion deny ing the peti ti oner ’s req uest for w it hhol din g of re mov al, noti ng thatthe dis crepanc iesi n Bor

tas ’s tes ti mony

thoroug h ly u n d e rmined hiscl aim that he woul d be subj ect ed to future persec uti on i f sent back to Romani a. W e find no l eg al basi s u pon w hic h to o vert ur n the BIA ’s dec is ion

. Fi rs t, the pet itione r’s unsupp orted due process c la im is si mp ly insuf f icient to ex cuse th e un time ly fili ng of hispeti ti on for asy lum, w hic h, un der 8 U .S.C . § 1158( a) (2 )( B) , had to be s ubmitted
w it hin one y ear

of hisar ri v al in the U nit ed St ates

. In A mir v . G onz ale s, 467 F .3d 9 21 ( 6th Ci r. 2006) , we reje cte d a c lai m, s imi lar to Bor tas ’s , that the immig ra ti on cour t “abus ed its dis creti on i n notrecei v ing furth er ev ide nce” bec ause “t he q uest ion of w hether to admitor not a dmitev ide nce is not a const it uti onal q uest ion nor one involv ing st atuto ry

co nst ru cti on.” Id. at 92 4. Mo re ov er , t he s peci fic e v ide nce now cl aimed to hav e been improp er ly reje cte d06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

- 6 - byth e i mm i g ra t i o n j u d g e a s u n re l i a b l e – a n e mp l o y me n t re c o rd p ro ffe re d b y B o rt a s that
w as conc eded t o be both improper ly trans lat ed and unauthe nti cat ed – w as not ment ion ed as par t of the peti ti oner ’s cont enti on before the BIA that the i mmig ra ti on j udg e was bia sed ag ain st him. W e c oncl ude that any er ro r in the i mmig ra ti on j udg e’sr uli ng was w aiv ed
w hen it w as not rai sed before the BIA. It cer tai nly cannot be resur re cte d at thi s lat e dat e as a bas is upon w hic h to ex cus e the peti ti oner ’s v iola ti o n o f Secti on 1158 (a )( 2) (B ). I t follows tha t, un der 8 U.S.C. § 115 8(a)(3), w e lack jurisdiction to rev iew the BI A’s deter minat ion of ti meli ness . Seco nd, t he i mmig ra ti on judg e’sdecis ion to deny w it hhol din g of

remov al based on hisfactual dete rmi nati on th at B ortas was not c re dib le issuppor ted bysu bst anti al ev ide nce, g iv en the g re at nu mber of materi al inc onsi ste nci es in and betw een t he pet it ion er ’s w ri tten appl ic ati on for asy lum and hi s tes ti mony at the hear ing s in the immi g ra ti on c our t. Inde ed, the p eti ti oner ’s l ack

of credi bil ity alo ne is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he deni al of his req uestfor
w ithho lding of

rem o va l, b e c ause the on ly ev iden ce of

fered to esta blish his fear of f utu re persec uti on was hisow n tes ti mony . In ad dit ion , t he i mmig ra ti o n j udg e det er mined that Bor tas co uld be s afely

relo cat ed w it hin Romania based on the peti ti oner ’s tes ti mony that he had li v ed for three y ears w it hout persec uti on athi s mot her ’s home. Bor tas ’s arg ument that the t hreateni ng letter he re cei v ed there est abl is hed the li kel iho od of f uture persec uti on is undercutby

the cont ent o f the l ett e r, wh ic h threatened Bor tas w it h har m onl y

i f he re tur ned t o hi s p re v iou s resi dence i n a d ifferent area of R omania

.06-3318

Bortas v. Gonzales

- 7 - As for th e pet it ion er ’s req uestfor reli ef under th e U .N . Conv enti on, g iv en th e ev ide nce conc er nin g relo cat ion w it hin R omania outl ine d abov e, B ortas has obv iou s l y fa il ed to “ est abl is h tha t i t i s more l ik ely than not that he . . . woul d be tor tured i f remov ed to the propose d c ountr

y of re mov al. ” 8 C .F .R . § 1208.16 (c )( 2)

. For these reas ons, w e DEN Yrev iew of the fin al order

of the B oard of Immig ra ti on Appeal s aff ir ming the deci si on of the immi g ra ti on judg e to deny as y lum and t he w it hhol din g of remov al in thi s c ase.