FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 13996 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 96- 094- 750 L Y U B O M I R I V A N O V I V A N O V , 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 30, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L y ubom i rI va nov I va nov, ac i t i z e n a nd na t i ve of B ul ga r i a , pr oc e e di ng2

p ro se, p et i t i o n s th i s co u rtfo 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 ”) deci si on di sm i ss i ng an appeal fr om the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) deni al of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , 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 at i on al i ty A ct , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture a n d O th e rC ru e l, I n h u m a n , o rD e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8, 12 31 (b)( 3), 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c ). I . B AC KG RO UN D I n v a n o v ’s ap p lic a tio n f

o rr e lie f w a s p r e m is e d o n m is tr e a tm e n t a lle g e d ly s uf f e r e d a s ar e s ul tof

be i ng R om a , am i nor i tye thni c i tyi n B ul ga r i a . O n appe a l , he a r gue s tha t : ( 1) the B I A e rr e d byf i ndi ng tha te xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s di d not e xc us e hi s unt i m e l ya s y l um appl i c a t i on; ( 2) he w a s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) because he s uffe re d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, thus tr i gge r i ng apr e s um pt i on tha thi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be th r e a t e n e d u p o n h i s r e tu rn t o B u l g a r i a ; a n d ( 3 ) h e wa s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e rC AT be c aus e he s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on.

I I . DI S CUS 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 ytha tde c i s i on, “ e xc e ptt o the e x te n t th a t [ th e B I A ] e x p r e s s lya 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 f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “In so fa r a s th e [ B IA ] ad o p ts th e I J’s r e a s o n in g , w e w ill r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s w e ll.” I d . H e r e , th e B I A is s u e d its3

o w n d e c is io n w ith o u t a n ya d o p tio n . T h e r e f o r e , w e r e v ie w o n lyth e B I A ’s d e c is io n . I n a ddi t i on, the I Js pe c i f i c a l l yf ound I va nov t o be c r e di bl e a nd the B I A di d not ad d re ss th is fin d in g . T h er ef o re , w e tak e h is testim o n y a s tru e. M ejia v . U .S . A tt ’y G en. , 49 8 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 55 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, re vi ew i s de nov o. M oh am m ed v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 -48 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . F a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s , h o w e v e r , a r e r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e “h ig h ly defe re nt i al subst ant i al evi dence t es t , ” w hi ch re qu i re s us t o “ vi ew the re cord e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n a n d d r a w a ll r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof tha tde c i s i on. ” A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 6 - 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e “m u s t a f f irm th e B I A ’s d e c is io n if i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord co n sid er ed as a w h o le.” A l N ajjar, 2 5 7 F .3 d at 1 2 8 4 (q u o tati o n o m itted ). “[W ]e c a nnote nga ge i n f

a c t - f i ndi ng on appe a l , norm a yw e w e i gh e vi de nc e tha tw a s not p r e v io u s lyc o n s id e r e d b e lo w .” I d . a t 1 2 7 8 . A . T i m e l i ne s s of

A s y l um A ppl i c a t i on W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. R ui z v. G onz a l e s , 479 F . 3d 762, 765 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . A n appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um m us tbe f ile d w ith in o n e y e a ra 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 15 8(a) (2)( B ). A l tho ug h an u nt i m el y app l i ca t i on m aybe consi dere d4

w here the A tt orney G ener al i s s at i sf i ed thatthere ar e c hang ed or extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s , “ [ n] o c ourts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a nyde t e rm i na t i on of th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l u n d e r[ § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ].” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , ( a ) ( 3 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) “e lim in a te s ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew the A tt orney G ener al ’ s det erm i nat i on w hether an al i en fi l ed w i thi n o ne ye ar or es t abl i shed extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s t o excuse an unt i m el y f i l i ng . ” S anchez Ji m enez v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 49 2 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). W e c on cl ud e thatw e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on that Ivanov fa i l ed t o t i m el y f i l e hi s app l i ca t i on or dem on stra t e e xtra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x c u s in g th is u n tim e lyf ilin g . S a n c h e z J im e n e z , 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e D I SM I SS th e p e t i t i o n a s t o th i s c l a i m. B . W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al A n al i en se eki ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A m ustes t abl i sh that h i s l i fe o r freed o m w o u l d b e th reat en ed o n acco u n to f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, me mb e r s h i p i n ap a rt i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . 8 U . S. C. § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ). If

the al i en es t abl i shes pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed gr ound, the r e i s apr e s um pt i on tha thi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d upon r e turn t o hi s c ountry . 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b) ( 1) ( i ) . T o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the a l i e n m us tpr ove tha t1) he w a s pe r s e c ut e d, a nd 2) the pe r s e c ut i on w a s on a c c ount of a prot ec t ed grou nd . S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11th C i r.5

20 06 ). A l tho ug h the t erm i s notdefi ned b y the IN A , w e have hel d that

“ pe r s e c ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n af e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n , a n d th a t m e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to pe r s e c ut i on. ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (percuri am ) ( qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). “ In det erm i ni ng w hether an al i en has s uffe re d pastpers ec ut i on , the IJm ustconsi der the cum ul at i ve ef fe ct s of the i nci dent s. ” D e lg a d o v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 8 7 F .3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o ne xus , the pe t i t i one rm us ts how tha the w a s pe r s e c ut e d be c aus e of apr ot e c t e d gr ound. I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U . S . 478, 483, 112 S . C t . 812, 816 (199 2). I n th is c a s e , s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e B I A ’s f in d in g th a t I v a n o v d id n o t s u f f e rp a s t p e r s e c u tio n b e c au s e th e in c id e n ts h e d e s c r ib e d e ith e rd id n o t r is e to the l e ve l of

pe r s e c ut i on orw e r e noton a c c ountof e thni c i ty . N o pr e s um pt i on of future pers ec ut i on appl i es , and Ivano v h as no tas se rt ed thathe can sho w future p e r s e c u tio n , a n d th u s , h a s ab a n d o n e d th e is s u e . S e p u lv e d a , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 n .2 . A c c o r d in g ly , th e B I A d id n o t e rrb yd e n y in g h is c la im f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. C . R e l i e f

u n d e rC AT

“ A s asi gn at ory t o [C A T ] , the U ni t ed S t at es has a gree d n ott o exp el , re turn ore xtr a di t e ape r s on t o a nothe rS t a t e w he r e the r e a r e s ubs t a nt i a l gr ounds f or be l i e vi ng tha the w oul d be i n da nge rof be i ng s ubj e c t e d t o t ortur e . ” J e a n- P i e rr e v.6

U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 500 F . 3d 1315, 1322- 23 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt ed). T o o bt ai n rel i ef un der C A T , the appl i canthas the bu rden of prov i ng that

“ i ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha the ors he w oul d be t ortur e d i f r e m ove d t o the p r o p o s e d c o u n tryo f

r e m o v a l.” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T ortur e i s de f

i ne d a s a nya c tbyw hi c h s e ve r e pa i n ors uf f e r i ng, w he the rphy s i c a l orm e nt a l , i s i nt e nt i ona l l yi nf l i c t e d on ape r s on f

or s uc h purpos e s a s obt a i ni ng f r om hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on i nf orm a t i on orac onf

e s s i on, puni s hi ng hi m orhe rf ora n a c the ors he orathi r d pe r s on ha s c om m i tt e d ori s s us pe c t e d of ha vi ng c om m i tt e d, ori nt i m i da t i ng orc oe r c i ng hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on, orf ora ny r e a s on ba s e d on di s c r i m i na t i on of a nyki nd, w he n s uc h pa i n or s uf f e r i ng i s i nf

l i c t e d byora tthe i ns t i ga t i on of orw i th the c ons e ntor ac qu i es ce nce of a publ i c off i ci al or other pers on ac t i ng i n an o ff i ci al cap aci ty. 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 1). “ T orture i s an extre m e f orm of cruel and i nh um an tr e a tm e nta nd doe s noti nc l ude l e s s e rf orm s of c rue l , i nhum a n orde gr a di ng tr e a tm e n t o rp u n is h m e n t th a t d o n o t a m o u n t to to rtu r e .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) . I n a s s e s s in g w h e th e rit is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th a t a n ap p lic a n t w o u ld be t ortur e d i n the pr opos e d c ountryof r e m ova l , a l l e vi de nc e r e l e va nt t o the pos s i bi l i tyof

f utur e t ortur e s ha l l be c ons i de r e d, i nc l udi ng, but n o t lim ite d to : ( i) E v id e n c e o f

p a s t to rtu r e in f

lic te du p o n th e ap p lic a n t; (i i ) E vi dence thatthe appl i cantcoul d rel ocat e t o a partof the coun try of r e m ova l w he r e he ors he i s notl i ke l yt o be t ortur e d; ( iii) E v id e n c e o f

g r o s s , f la g r a n t o rm a s s v io la tio n s o f h u m a n r ig h ts w i thi n the c ountryof

r e m ova l , w he r e appl i c abl e ; a nd7

( i v) O the rr e l e va nti nf

orm a t i on r e ga r di ng c ondi t i ons i n the c ountryof r e m o v a l. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) ( 3) . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l ya c c e pt e d the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the r e gul a t oryde f

i ni t i on of t ortur e a s one tha ti nc l ude s “ c e rt a i n i s ol a t e d, vi c i ous a nd de l i be r a t e a c t s , s uc h a s burni ng w i th c i ga r e tt e s , c hoki ng, hoodi ng, ka l ot m arassa, an d el ectri c sh o ck , ” b u td o es n o ti n cl u d e “ o th er fo rm s o f p o l i ce b ru t al i ty .

. . [ s uc h a s ] be a t i ngs w i th f i s t s , s t i c ks , a nd be l t s . . . . ” C a de tv. B ul ge r , 377 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 94 -95 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). In thi s c as e, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng thatIvanov has n o t e s tab lis h e d th a t it is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld s u f f e rto rtu r e u p o n h is r e tu rn t o Bu l g a r i a . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e BI A d i d n o te rrb yd e n y i n g h i s CA T c l a i m. I I I . CONCL US I ON Ivanov pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew s of the B IA ’ s dec i si on af fi rm i ng the IJ ’ s deni al of hi s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A , and rel i ef unde rC A T . B e c aus e 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 f i ndi ng tha tI va nov f a ile d to s h o w e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s e x c u s in g th e u n tim e lyf ilin g o f h is as yl um appl i ca t i on , w e di sm i ss the pet i t i on as t o thi s i ss ue. S ub st ant i al evi dence s upport s the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s c l a i m f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l be c aus e the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tI va nov f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on a p ro t ect ed g ro u n d an d Iv an o v ab an d o n ed an y arg u m en tth ath e h as o th erw i se8

e s tab lis h e d th a t h is lif

e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld b e th r e a te n e d u p o n r e tu rn to B u lg a r ia . F in a lly , s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f I v a n o v ’s C A T c la im be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha ti tw oul d be m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha the w oul d be to rtu r e d u p o n h is r e tu rn to B u lg a r ia . PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.