Circui t Jud ge An n Clair e W il li am s rec used hers el fafteroral  arg u m en t an d h as no t p articip ated in d ecid ing this ap p eal. Th is d ec isi o n is b e i n g issu ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el

. S ee 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 A BDUL H. K HAN, Y AS MEE N H ASE EB , S ARAH H ASE EB , a nd S ANA H ASE EB , P etitio ners, v. M AR K F ILIP, A c tin g A tt or n ey G en er al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tion s for Re vie wof Or de r s of the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A96-494- 318, A 96-494- 319, A 96-494- 320 &A 96-494- 321

A RGUED J AN UA RY 18, 2008

— D ECIDED J AN UA RY 29, 2009

Befo re B AU ER a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges .  S YKES, Cir cu i t Judg e. A bdul Khan i s a nati ve and ci ti zen of P ak ist an w h o e n te re d th e U n i t e d Sta te s w ith h is2 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 f am i l y in 199 8. They r em ained here a fterthei r vi si tor s’ v i s a s ex p i r e d , a n d i n 2 0 0 3 K h a n a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, wi thho l di ngo frem oval, a nd pr o te ct i o n un derthe Co nven tion A gainst Tortu re (“CA T ”). H is f am il y m em bers are d erivative ap p li can ts. A n Im m igrati on Jud ge (“IJ”) he ard th e claim s an d d en ied r eli ef, con clud ing th a t K ha n’s asy l um appli cati on was unti m el y a nd the del ay w as not excused by extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces; that K han f ai l ed to show he had suffer ed pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d perse cuti on i n Paki sta n; and th at K han had f ai l ed to sho w a cl ear p ro b ab ility th at h e w ou ld be p er se c u te d or to rt u re d if he r etur ne d t o Pa k i st an . Th e Bo a r d o fI mm i g r a t i o n Appe a l s ( “ BI A” ) a ffi r med

. K ha n th en m oved to reop en, p resen ting w ha t he ch aract eri zed as new evi dence abo ut hi s physic aland m ental cond iti on that he cl ai m ed und er m i ned the IJ ’ s deci si ons. The BIA decl i ned to re open the case . Kh an as ks us to re vi ew ea ch ofthes e deci si ons. W e di sm iss in p ar t a nd deny in partthe peti ti ons f or re vi ew . U nd er 8 U
. S. C. § 1 158( a) ( 3) , we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o r ev i ew the BI A’s de te r m i na ti o ns tha t Khan’ s as y l um cl ai m was unti m el y a nd the del ay w as not excused by extr aor dinar y ci rcum sta nces. The RE A L I D Act of 2 005, Pub. L . N o. 10 9- 13, § 106( a) ( 1) ( i i ) , 11 9 S tat
. 23 1, 31 0- 11, perm i ts j ud i ci alr evi ew o fco nsti tuti onalcl ai m s orquesti ons of l aw ; Kh an’ s chal l enges to the i m m i gr ati on age ncy’ s t i m el i ness and “extr aord i naryci rcum sta nces” d e term inations ad d ress on ly factu al and discret ionary i ssues and ther ef or e l i e o u ts i de ourr evi ew j uri sdic

tio n . See V

a sile v. G o nz a les , 4 1 7F
. 3 d 7 6 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. WeN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 3 al so concl ud e that substan t i a le v i de nc e s upport s the age ncy’ s denia l of w i thhol ding of re m ova lan d p ro te ct i o n a g ains t rem o va lunde rthe CAT. F i na l l y, t o the ex ten t w e h ave j urisd iction t o rev iew th e d en ialof K ha n’s m oti on to re open, w e concl ud e that the BIA did n ot abuse i ts disc re ti on in deter m i ni ng tha t Kha n ’s “ new ev id en c e” w as n eit h er n ew n or m at er ial.

I . B a c kg r o und K h an is a M o h ajir, a te rm u se d to d es c rib e P ak ist an is ofInd ian desce nt. Because M ohaj i rs f aced di ffi cul ti es com peti ng with othe r Paki stan i s forj obs and pol i ti cal i n fl u e n c e , s o me Mo haj i r s j o i n e d th e Mo h aj i rQ u a mi M ove m ent ( “M QM ”) , an o rg ani zati on o ste nsibl y devo ted to expand i ng the i nfluence o fi ts m em ber s. Kh an j oi ned th e M QM i n 1 985 a nd a ss um ed ana ct i ve r o l e i n the or gani zati on; he a ssi ste d the par ty b y dist ributi ng fl yer s, m ak i ng spe ec he s, tr an spo r ting vo te r s to po l l s, rai sing fund s, and dis pla yi ng pol i ti calsi gns. Beg i nni ngi n the e ar l y 1 99 0s, so m e el ement s o fthe M QM b eg antur ni ngt o v i o l en ce a s a m ea ns o fa chie ving the o r g a ni z a t i o n’ s goal s . Kh a n’ s b r o the r, a f o r merMQM m embe r, was b ea te n b y the o r g an i za ti o n whe n h e r e fus e d t o f o l l o w MQM o r de r s t o k i dn a p a p o l i ti cal o ppo ne nt; he l at erfl ed to Eng l and

. T he M QM ’ s vi o l en t turn a nd the m i str eat m ent o fhi s br othe r prom pte d Kh an to resign from th e organ ization; he told M Q M m em bers he nee ded to car e forh i s i l lf ather

. N eve rthel ess , Kh an co nt i nue d t o pr o vi d e m o nthl y fi na nc i als uppo r t to the MQ M.4 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252

The Pa ki s t anigover nm en tha d begunc ra c ki ng down on 1 M QM vi ol en c e and m ist ake nl y a rr es t ed Khan, thi nki ng h e w as his brother ( though there is n o evidence hi s brother was im plic ated i n M Q M viole nce)
. K han w a s beaten and kicked d u ring his tw o-d ay d eten tion , an d w as relea sed o n l y a fter his f am i l y pai d a br ibe. Khan’s p resentc l ai m s , ho wever, ar e not pre m i s ed o n thi s i ncid en t ; he doe s no tar gue thatthe Pa ki s t ani gov ernm ent w ill sub j ecthim to perse cuti on ifhe i s rem oved to hi s nati ve country. H is cl aim s f or re li effrom rem oval are i n s t e a d b a s e d o n th e a b u s e h e fe a r s fr o m th e MQ M. K han fi rs t ca m e t o the Unite d S ta te s in J une 199 5 a fter the Paki sta ni gov er nm ent f al sel y ar re ste d hi m an d detained him f ornear l y tw o days. K han re turned t o Paki sta n 1 1 7da y s l a t e rwh e n he l e a r ne d hi s f a the rh a d s uffe r e d a hear t a tta ck. U pon hi s r etur n, M Q M m em ber s be gan hara ssing hi m . Fo r exam ple , wh en Kh an expl ai ned that he nee ded to car e forhi s a i l i ng f ather, an M QM m em ber thre ate ned to ki l lKh an’ s f at h er . Late r, i n Decem ber19 97, K h an an d h is fa m ily w er e c arj ac ke d by m en K h an sa id he r eco gni zed as M QM m em b er s. Kh an was w ar ned not to re portthe cri m e t o the pol i ce, but he di d so anyway. The cum ula ti ve im p ac t o fthes e e vents pro m pted K han to m ake ar ra ngem ents to l eave Pak ist an . H e qui t hi s j ob i n D e c e mb e r1 9 9 7a n d c a me t o th e U n i t e d S t a t e s b y h i msel fi n Feb ruar y 199 8 to pr epare f orhi s f am i l y’ s r el oca ti on. H oweve r, Kh an r etur ned to Paki sta n i n M ar ch 199 8 be ca us e hi s y o ung es t d au gh terwas i l l

. Ba cki n P ak i st an, K han ask ed pol i ce about the pr ogr ess o fthe i nvest i gati on into h is st ol en car . H e be l i eve s M QM m em ber s s aw hi m go to the pol i ce, and i n M ay K han w as abducted byN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 5 th e M Q M an d h eld for n ea rly t h r e e d ay s. D u rin g h is d et en tio n, h is cap to rs ac c u se d h im of rep or tin g t h eir acti vi ti es to the pol ice , s eve re l y b eathi m and thr eat ened to ki l lhi m , and w ar ned him nev er to s peak t o the pol i ce ag ain. F or em p hasi s, the y s ho wed hi m a b o x c o nt aini ng seve re d finge rs . Kh an’ s f am i l y no ti fi ed author i ti es abouthi s ab duct i o n, b utKhanne ve rfi l ed a co m pl aint about the k i dn apping w i th the pol i ce o r re port ed i t t o th e m ed ica l p er so n n el w h o t re at ed h is inj u rie s a fte r h is re l eas e. T h is in c id en t fin ally co n vin c ed K h an to m o v e h is fam ily to th e U n ite d Sta te s. K h an en te re d th is c ou n tr y in J une 1998 w i th hi s w i fe and tw o daughters , an d th ey ov e r s t a ye d th eir vis ito rs ’ vis as . K h an h ad little tro u b le o bt aini ngnumer o us j o bs , r en tinga n ap ar tment, a nd supp or ti ng his fa m i l y. But K han’s fri ends noti ced that h i s e x p e r i e n c e s i n P a k i s t a n c a u s e d h i m t o d e v e l o p s y mptom s of d ep ressio n, avoid social conta ct, and hav e d if

fi cul ty m aking deci si ons. One o fKhan ’ s fr i en ds ur g ed hi m t o a ppl y f o ra sy l um base d on hi s m i str eat m ent b y the M QM , but K han w ai ted se ve r aly ea r s to pur su e t ha t opt i o n. In J une 2 00 2 th e A tto rneyG ener alann ounced the N ati onalS ecuri ty En tr yEx i t Reg i str ati on S yst em , wh i ch r equi re d al i ens fro m cer tain countr i es ( i ncl ud i ng Pak i sta n ) to r egi ste r w i th im m i g r a tio n offic ials

. SeeRe g i st r at i o n a nd M o ni to r i ng ofCert ai n N on- I m m i gr ants, 67Fe d. R eg. 52 , 584- 601 ( A ug. 12 , 20 02). T hi s deve l opm ent pr om pted K han to apply f o ra sy l um , and in Mar ch2 00 3 ( se ve r almonths before he w as r e q u ired to register and nearly fi ve years6 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252

a ft e ra r r i v i ngi n the Uni t e d S t a t e s) h e s ub mi t t e d a n a ppli cati on f oras yl um , withhol ding ofr em ova l, and prote ct i o n a g ains t r emov alunde rthe CAT. I n May 20 05 a n IJ de ni ed a l lo fKhan ’ s appl i ca ti o ns . The asy l um cl ai m had bee n fi l ed w el lbey ond the o ne- yea r ti m e l i m i t es tabl i sh ed by 8 U. S
. C. § 11 58 ( a) ( 2) ( B) , and the IJ r ej ecte d it as u nti m el y. Kh an as ser ted thathe di d not know about the o ne- yea r deadli ne a n d t hat hi s poo r m entalheal th

— h i s d e p r e s s i o na n d fe a ro fb ei ng re turned t o Paki sta n

— com prom i sed hi s abi l ity to ti m ely fi l e f o ra sy l um . He a r g ue d tha t t he se wer e th e sor t o f“e xtra or dinar y c i rcum sta nces” that should excuse th e la te filing u n d er 8 U .S .C
. § 1 15 8(a )(2) (D ), bu t t h e IJ disa gr eed. Turni ng to Khan’s withhol ding- of

- re m ova l cl ai m , the IJ questi oned the cre d ibi l i ty ofcer tain aspect s of K h an ’s t es tim on y b u t n on et h ele s s a c c ep te d it; th e IJ hel d that the at tack s w er e no t s uffi ci entl y s eve re to be consi dered per secuti on a nd wer e no t m oti vate d by K h an ’s p olit ica l be liefs . Th e IJ als o rej ec te d K h an ’s c laim o fa n obj ec ti ve ly re as o nabl e fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n. F i n a l l y, th e IJ co n c lu d ed th at K h an h ad n otsh ow n it w as m or e like ly th an n ott h a t h e w ou ld be to rt u re d if he were re m ov ed to Paki sta n. A ccor dingl y, the IJ ente re d ano r dero fr emov al

. T he BI A ado pte d a nd a ffi r m ed th e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n, a n d Kh a n fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W hi l e Khan’ s pet i ti o n fo rr evi ew was s ti l li n the bri efi ng st age , he a sked t h e B I A to r eopen hi s r em ova l p ro c ee d in g b as ed on w h at h e c laim ed w as n ew ev idence

— affi davi ts w i th addit i onalm entalh ealth re

port s

— supp or ti ng hi s alleg ati on that hi s m entalangui shN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 7 shoul d excuse hi s unti m ely a syl um appli cati on. Kh an al so ar gu ed that the r epor ts add re sse d the IJ ’ s s kepti ci sm about the c re dibi l i ty of c er tain aspect s o fhi s t est i m ony. The BI A deni ed th e m o ti o n t o r eo pen, hol d i ngtha t th e “new ev i denc e” w as m er el y r epeti ti ous a nd di d not provide a b as i s f o rups et tingthe IJ ’ s det er m i na ti o ns . The BI A not ed th atthe IJ ha d a cc ept ed K ha n’s te st i m o ny abou t t he a ssau lts an d th e m ed ical rep orts d id n ot un d erm i ne the IJ ’ s a l ternati ve concl usi on that the attacks we r e n o tmo t i v a t e d by po l i t i c a lo pi ni o n. Kh a n fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o rre vi ew o fth i s d e c i s i o n a s we l l, a n d we o r de r e d the p e t i t i o ns c o ns o l i da t e d.

I I . Discussi on A . A sylu m claim K ha n fir st ch all e n ges th e im m igrati on age nc y’s f ail ure to re ach the m er i ts ofhi s a syl um cla im . T h e IJ di sm i sse d K h an ’ s a syl um appli cati on be cause i t was notfi l ed wi thin a y e a r a ft e r Kha n a r r i v e d i n the Uni t e d St ate s a s re quir ed by 8 U.S
. C. § 1 158( a) ( 2) ( B). The IJ had the discre ti on t o i gnor e thi s dead lin e i fKh an es tabl i shed that hi s del ay w as du e t o “extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces, ” i d. § 1 158(a )( 2) ( D), but the IJ di d not thi nk Khan p re sente d su ffici en tly co m p ellin g c irc u m st an c es to ex c u se h is near l y fi ve- yea r del ay. The B I A affi rm ed. Kh an chal l enges t h e agen cy’s d eterm ination th at he l acke d “ext raord inary ci r cumst an ce s” f o r th e unt i m ely fi l i ng, a r g ui ngtha t th e IJ di d not g i ve appropri ate weight to the evi dence8 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 showing K han suffer ed from a se ri ous m entaldi sabi l i ty be ca us e o fhi s m i st r ea tmentwhi l e i n P ak i st an . The probl em f orKh an is thatwe l ack j uri sdic ti on t o r e v i e w the IJ ’ s t i mel i ne ss de t e r mi na t i o n. Und e r8 U. S
. C. § 1 15 8(a )(3) , w e h av e n o jur isd ict ion t o r e v i e w an y d ec isi o n the ag en cymake s unde r§ 1 15 8( a) ( 2) , i nc l udi ng dec i si o ns r el at i ngt o whethe rthe a ppl i ca ntha s demonstr ate d “extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces” excusi ng a del ay i n fi l i ng an asy l um appli cati on. The REA L I D A ct o f2005 prese rv ed ourj uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew “co nsti tuti onal cl ai m s” or“quest i ons ofl aw . ” See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (D). B uta s we e xpl aine d i n V a sile v. G o nz a les , 4 1 7 F
. 3 d 7 66, f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o ns ( su cha s whethe rthe a sy l um ap p li ca ti o n was fi l ed wi th i n the o ne - y ea rde adl i ne ) a nd di s c r e t i o na r y de c i s i o ns ( s uc h a s whe the r the a l i en has demons tr at ed “e xt r ao r di na r y c i r cumst an ce s” j us ti fy i ng the del ay) do notf al lwithi n the excepti on t o the j uri sdict i onalbarf orco n sti tuti onalcl ai m s o r questi ons of law u n d er § 12 52 (a)( 2)(D ). Se ei d. at76 8- 79. Khan ur g es us t o r ec o ns i dero urho l di ngi n V a sile. He ar gues that Va si le, wh i c h dis cussed the questi on- of

- l aw ex ce pti o n cr ea te d by th e REAL I D Act, g av e insuffi ci en t att enti on t o the l egi sl ati ve h isto ryo fthe A ct. A cl ose r l oo k a t that l egi sl ati ve hi sto ry, K han cl ai m s, dem onst ra tes that Co ng r e s s i nt e nd e d the t e r m “ qu e s t i o ns o f l a w ” t o encom pass n ot onlyquesti ons ofst atuto ryi nter preta ti on but al so questi ons concerni ng t he appli cati on o fl aw to a seto ff acts

— orm i xed questi ons ofl aw and f act. W e decl ine Khan’s i nvi tat i on t o re vi si t Va si le

. S ecti on 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( D) pro vid es: “An appli cati on f oras yl um o fanN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 9

See, e . g. , Z hu v. G on zale s , 493 F. 3d 588, 596 n. 31 (5th Cir. 2007) 2 (not i n g t ha t fed era l ap p ellate co u rts lack jurisd iction “to rev iew tim eline ss de term ina tion s that a re b ased on an assessm en t o f th e fa ct s a n d cir cu m sta n ce s o f a p a r t i c u l a r ca se ” ); X i ao JiC hen v. U .S . Dep’ tof Just i ce, 471 F. 3d 315, 332 ( 2d C ir
. 2006) (“ T h i s p e t i t i o n e r ’s c h a l l e n g e i s m e r e l y a n o b je c t i o n to th e IJ ’s f actual findings and the balanci ng of f act ors in whi ch dis cre tio n w a s e x e r c i s e d .”); F erry v. G on zale s , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1130 (10th C i r . 20 06 ) (hold ing tha t a p etition er’s arg u m en t that a p en d ing ad justm en t-of- statu s ap p lication e xcu sed his unt i m e l y a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n “ i s a c h a l l e n g e t o a n e x e r c i s e of d isc re tio n t h a t r em a in s o u tsi d e o u r sc o p e o f re v ie w ” ); A l m u htaseb v. G on zale s , 4 5 3 F
. 3 d 74 3 , 74 8 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( a m e nd

i ng Ca s t e l l a no - Ch a c o n v . INS , 34 1 F .3d 533 ( 6th C ir. 20 03 ), a case c i t ed i n V

a sile , to cl ari fy that courts l ack j uris dicti on to re view “a s yl um appl i c at i ons den i ed for unt i m el i ne s s on l y whenthe appe al s ee ks r evi ew ofdi s c re t i ona ry or f ac t ual que s t i ons ” and decli ning to e xer ci se j uris dicti o n over a c lai m thatthe IJi ncorre ct ly ap p lie d th e “ ch a n g ed cir cu m sta n ce s” p ro v isi o n ); 

### (continued...) al i en m ay b e c o ns i de r e d .

. . i fthe a l i e n de mon s t r a t e s to t hes at i s f ac t i on ofthe A tto rneyG ener aleither the exi ste nce o fc ha ng ed ci r cumst an ce s w hi chmate r i al l y a ffec t th e ap p li can t’s el igibil ity for asylum o r extra ord inary circum sta nces re l ating to the del ay i n fi l i ng an applica ti on wi th i n [ th e o ne - y ea rpe r i o d]

. ” ( Em pha si s adde d. ) The ter m s “ m ay” and “to the s ati sf acti on o f ” s tr ongl y ind i cate t h at d ec isio n s u n d er § 11 58 (a)( 2)(D ) are , as w e s aid in Va si le, “inherent l y di scr eti onar y” and not r evie w abl e. 41 7 F
. 3d a t 76 8. Ev ery c i r cui t to c o ns i derthi s i ss ue s av e o ne ha s ag r ee d wi tho uri nt er pr et at i o n. 210 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252



### (...continued) S u kw an pu tra v. G on zale s , 43 4 F
. 3d 6 27, 63 5 ( 3d Ci r. 20 06 ) ( fi ndi ng that a cl aim that the peti ti oners s how ed changed ci rcum st ances o r e xt ra o rd in a ry cir cu m sta n ce s w a s d isc re tio n a ry ); I gnat ova v. G on zale s , 43 0 F
. 3d 1 20 9, 12 14 (8th C ir
. 20 05 ) ( fi ndi ng thatthe pre s en c e ofc han ge d ci rc um s t anc es “i s a di s c re t i ona ry j udgm en t o f th e A tt o rn ey G en er a l” ); C h a c o n -B o te ro v . U .S . A tt’y G e n. , 427 F. 3d 954, 957 ( 11th Cir

. 2005) ( “The ti m el ines s ofan as yl um appl i c at i on i s no ta c ons t i t ut i ona l c l ai m or que s t i on of la w co v er ed b y th e R ea l ID A ct ’s ch a n g es .”). A s f ar as we can te ll, only the N inth Circui t has concl ud ed tha t the in qu iry con tem p lated b y § 11 5 8 (a )(2 )( D ) is not a d isc re tio n a ry o n e. S ee Ra m adan v. G on zale s , 47 9 F.3d 64 6, 656 ( 9th Ci r. 20 07)
. How eve r, we a re no tpe rs uade d by i t s r ea s oni ng. A s w e j ust noted, s even other ci rcui ts agree w ith our int erpretat ion, and the N inth Circui t’ s refusal to rehear R amadan en b an c p ro m p ted a stron g ly w or d ed d issent from nin e jud g es, seeR am adan v. K eisl er, 50 4 F
. 3d 9 73 ( 9th Cir

. 20 07 ) ( O’ Sc ann l ai n, J., d iss en tin g fro m d en ia l o f re h ea ri n g en b a n c). F arfr o m s uppo r tingKhan ’ s i nt er pr et at i o n, the l eg i sl at i ve hi st o r y ac co m pan y i ng th e REAL I D A ct confirm s ou r re ad in g of t h e s ta tu te
. See H. R EP . 10 9- 72, at174- 76 ( 20 05 )
. The Hous e Con fer en ce Re po r t dis cus singthe R E AL I D Ac td e s c r ib e s wh a tth e t e r m “ q u e s t i o n s o fl a w” me a n ti n th e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n th a tw o u l d b e c o me § 12 52 ( a) ( 2) ( D)
. The r epo r t in di ca te s th ata l th o ugh Co ngress h ad cons idered ad d ing the w o r d “p ure ” before “q u es t ion s o f law ,” th e m od ifier w as leftou t b ec au se it w as und er sto od that“a ‘ questi on o fl aw ’ i s a questi on regard ing the cons tru c t ion of a statu te” an d therefore

“ [ t ] h e wo r d ‘ p u r e ’ a dds no me a n i n g . ” H. R EP . 10 9- 72, atN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 11 175. The r epor t a l so ex pla i ns thatthi s pro vi si on was desi gned “to per m i t j ud i ci alr evi ew o vertho se i ssues th at w er e h ist or ica lly r evi ew abl e o n habeas

— c o ns t i tut i onal an d statu tory-con stru ction q ue s t ion s, not discret ionary orf actualquesti ons. ” Id. K han sugg est s no nethel ess thatC on gr ess was tr yi ng to incorp orate m o re than cons titution al and statu tory-i nt erpreta ti on questi ons i nto the phrase “questi ons of l aw .” A ccepti ng tha t Congr ess wanted to m ai ntai n j ud i ci al re vi ew o f cl ai m s “ hi sto ri cal l y r evi ew abl e o n habeas , ” Khan s e i z e s u p o n l a n g u a g e f r o m IN S v
. St
. Cyr, 53 3 U.S
. 28 9 (20 01 ), sta tin g t h at h ab ea s re lief w as t r a d i tio n ally av ai l ab l e f o r“ det en ti o ns b as ed o n er r o r s o f l aw, i nc l udi ng th e err oneo us appl i ca t i on ori nter preta ti on o fst atute s. ” Id. at 302 ( em phasi s a dd ed). The legi sl ati ve hi sto rydoes s u g g e s tth a tC o n g r e s s d r e w o n St
. Cyrwhena do pting the pr ovi si on that would be com e § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( D), but not fo r th e po int K ha n m akes. Th e con ferenc e rep ort ind icates C ong ress sou gh t t o a d d ress th e Su p rem e C ou rt’s co nc ern in St. Cyrthatthe el i m i nati on o fj ud i ci alr evi ew ove r l ega li ssues would r ai se ser i ous c onst i tuti onalpro bl ems; the r e i s no th i ngt o s ug g es t, how ever, tha t th e phrase “questi ons of l aw ” as that ter m i s us ed in § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( D) i ncl ud es m i xed ques ti ons of l aw an d f act. To the c on tr ar y, the confer ence re portm enti ons so- cal l ed m i xe d que st i o ns o fl aw a nd f ac t as f o l l o ws: “ W he n a cour t i s pre sente d w i th a m i xed questio n o fl aw and f act, the c o ur t s ho ul d a na l y z e i t t o the e xt e nt the r e a r e l ega l ele m en ts , bu t s h ou ld n otr e v i ew an y fa c tu al e lem en ts .” H. R EP . 10 9- 72, at175.12 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252

K h a n i d e n t i fi e s w h a th e th i n k s a r e p u r e l y l e g a l e r r o r s s t e m- 3 m in g fro m er ro n eo u s in te rp re ta tio n s o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4(a )(5). This r egulati on ad dress es s ituations i n w hich an IJ m ay ex c us e the f ai l ur e to fi l e a t i m el y a s yl um appl i c at i on bas ed o n “ext ra o rdinary ci rcum st ances . ” K han argues that the IJrequ ired him to p ro v id e m or e ev id en ce excu sing h is d elay tha n is (co n tin u ed ...) W e a c k no wl e dg e tha t the l i ne b e t we e n l e g a lquesti o ns

— w hi c h w e ca n re vi ew

— and discr eti onar y o r f ac tu alde te r mina ti o ns

— w hi ch w e ca nnot

— is oc c as ion ally d i ffi c u l tt o d r a w. In ma n y c a s e s , suc h as th i s o n e , we c an d et er m i n e o u r lac k of ju ris d ict ion fairly rea d ily because i t i s cl earwe are being as ked to r evi ew ei ther f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o ns o r the manne ri n whi chthe ag en cywei g he d the v ar i o us f ac tor s t hat i nf o r m the ex er c ise of its d isc re tio n . See, e.g., O g a y o nn e v. M uk a sey, 53 0 F .3d 51 4, 51 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); ac co r d Xiao JiC he n v. U
. S. D ep’tof Just ice, 4 7 1 F
. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 3 2 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. S o me disc re ti onar y dete rm i n ati ons do pres ent underl yi ng, r ev i ewabl e que st i o ns o fl aw, s ucha s th o se i n whi chthe a g e nc y i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e a pp l i e d the wr o ngl e g a ls t a nd a r d. See Ta riq v. Keisler, 50 5 F
. 3d 650, 656 ( 7th Cir
. 2007 ) ( re cog ni zi ng that w e re tain j uri sdic ti on to deter m i ne w h ether the IJ er re d i n re quir i ng “ex cepti onalci rcum sta nces” ins t e a d o f“e xtra or dinar y c i rcum sta nces”)
. But the j uri sdic

ti onalbarcannotbe ove rco m e bytr yi ng to “s hoeho rn ” a f actualo r disc re tio narydeter m i nati on “ i nto the ‘ questi on ofl aw ’ cat ego ry ” o r cl ai m i ng that a quest i on o fl aw exi sts si mpl y b e c a us e the a g e nc y f a i l e d t o “ a pp l y the l a w, ” a s K han does here

. V

a sile, 41 7 F .3d at76 8; s e ealso C h en , 47 1 3N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 c al l ed for by the r eg ul at i ons . Thi s is an a rg um en tabo ut the s uffi c i en c y ofthe e vi den ce, no tthe i nt er pre t at i on ofthe re gul at i on. A nti ci pating this res ult, K han argues that our holding creat es 4 se ri ous cons titutional prob le m s. The R EA L ID Act re placed the sys tem ofchal le nging d eportat ion o rd ers via habeas appr ove d i n IN S v. St
. C yr, 533 U.S. 2 8 9 , w ith a s yst em that perm it s federal app el late courts to revie w cons ti tuti onal c l ai m s an d que s t i ons ofl aw on p eti t i ons f or r evi ew fro m the im m ig ra tio n ag en cy . S ee H. R EP . 10 9-72 , at 175. D raw ing ag ain o n l a n g u a g e fr o m St. C yr, Kha n a r gu e s tha tthe t r a di t i on a l s c op e ofhabeas a llo w ed chall enges to “dete nti ons base d on err ors ofl aw , inclu d ing the er ro ne ou s a pp l i ca t i o n or i nt er pre t at i on of st atute s. ” S t. C yr. , 53 3 U .S. at 30 2 (em p ha sis ad d ed ). T his st atem ent w as part ofa broader com m entar y by the Cou rtthat the o n ly m et hod thr oug h w hich an ali en could chal le nge a dep ortat ion order unti l the 195 0 s w a s a habeas peti ti on. K han (co n tin u ed ...) F. 3d at 329- 30 ( “[ W ] hen anal ysi s o f t h e a rgum ents ra i sed by the pet i ti on f orj ud i ci alr evi ew r eve al s that they do not i n f act ra i se any r eview abl e i ssues , the peti ti onercannot o ve r co m e th i s defi ci en cya nd s ecu re rev i ew b y us i ngthe rhet or i c o fa ‘ const i tuti onalcl ai m ’ o r ‘ questi on o fl aw ’ to di sgu i se whati s es se nt i al l y a qua r r elabo utf ac t- fi ndi ng or the ex ercise of d iscretion.”). Because Khan prese nts a chal l enge that “is m erel y a n o bj ec ti o n t o the IJ ’ s f ac tu alfi ndi ng s an d the b al an cing o f f a c t o r s i n whi c h di s c r e t i o n wa s e xe r c i s e d, ” w e l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew i t. C hen , 4 71 F. 3d at3 32 ( di smi ss i ng 414 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 ar gue s thati fwe l ac k j ur i s di c t i on t o re v iew m i xe d que s t i ons of law an d f act, § 12 52 (a)( 2)(D ) i s n ot a n a d equ ate su b stitute for ha b eas. W e t h in k K h a n m isc h a ra ct er iz es th is a sp e ct o f St. C yr . The Co urt e xpres se d concern th a t a n y acti on by Cong res s that wou l d “ent ir el y pr e c l ude r e vi e w ofa pu r e que s t i ono fl a w by an y cou rt w ou ld giv e rise to su b stan tial con stitu t i o n a l qu esti ons, ” i d. at 30 0; the C ou rt d id no t sug g est th a t t he inab ility to revi ew m i xe d que s t i ons ofl aw and f ac twoul d ra i s e c ons t i t ution al co nc ern s. T he con cern ab ou t jud icial rev iew of pu rely le gal ques ti ons has been al le viated b y § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hich a u th o r i z e s r e v i e w o fc o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i ms a n d q u e s t i o n s o fl a w. Kha n thi nks thi s c a s e f a l l s i nt o a n e x c e pt i onr e c og ni z e d b y 5 so m e o f o u r si st e r c i r c u i t s t o p e r m i t r e v i e w o f th e a g e n c y ’s a p p lic a tio n o f la w to fa ct s if th e fac ts a r e u n d i s p u te d

. S ee L iu v . INS , 50 8 F .3d 7 16 , 72 2 (2d C ir. 20 07 ) (recog niz ing the p ossib ility of exe rci si ng j uris dicti on over disc ret ionary deci si ons base d on “unam biguo us m is charact erizati ons” ofthe rec ord, s uch as w h e n a n IJ states that h is de cision is b ased on a lack of testim ony on a t opi c ye t the re c or d una m bi guous l y re v eals the ex ist en ce o f su ch te sti m o n y ); cf
. R am adan v. G on zale s , 479 F. 3d 64 6, 65 7 ( 9th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( not i ng thatthe f ac t ual bas is ofthe peti ti on w as und is pu ted and p rocee ding to determ ine w hether (co n tin u ed ...) for lac k of ju ris d i c tio n a sim ilar ch alle n ge to an u n tim eliness deter m i nati on ). Kh an’ s cl ai m thathi s m ental angui sh co nsti tuted an “ extrao rdi naryci rcum sta nce” preve nti ng hi m fro m fi l i ng a ti m ely asyl um appli cati on ra ise s n o leg al iss u e; it is, in st ea d , a qu in t e s s e n tia lly f actual and discr eti onar y i ssue. Se e, e . g. , O gayon ne, 53 0 5N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 the f ac t s c ons t i t ut e “c han ge d ci rc um st anc es ”)
. W e t ake no posit ion on this ex cepti on; thi s is not a cas e ofund is pu ted facts. K ha n o ffe red m u ltiple f actu al b ases for excu sing his l at e appl i c at i on ra ngi ng fro m h i s pur por t ed i gnor anc e ofthe sta tu to ry dead li ne t o the diffic ulti es posed by his m ental pro bl em s . The IJ ha d t o e val uat e the e vi denc e and t es t i m ony and m ake f a ct u a l findings ( such as determ ini ng w hetherK han was i n f ac t ign or antofthe dea dl i ne an d det er m i ni ng the se v er ity o f K h a n ’s m en ta l p ro b le m s). F.3 d at 5 1 9; Z eqiri v. M uk a sey, 529 F.3d 364 , 369 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); Pavly k v. Gonza les , 469 F.3d 108 2, 1086 -87 (7th C ir. 20 06 ); So k o lo v v . Go nz a les , 4 4 2 F.3d 566, 568-69 (7th Cir. 2006 ); Vasile, 41 7 F
. 3d at 768- 69.

B . Wi t h h o l d i n g - o f - r e mo v a l a n d C AT c l a i ms T h er e i s no j uri sdic ti onalbarpre venting us fro m r eview ing the IJ’ s d ecision to rej ect K ha n’s w ithh olding-ofr emov ala nd CAT cl ai m s. W he r e th e BI A affi r m s an d a d o p t s th e d e c i s i o n o fth e IJ, a s i td i d i n th i s c a s e , we r e v i e w th e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n a s s u p p l e me n t e d b y th e B I A. B inR a shed v. G o nz a les , 50 2 F
. 3d 66 6, 67 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Our ex am ination of the agen cy’s d ecision is lim ited to det erm i ni ngwhethe ri ts c o nc l usi o n i s su ppo r te d b y s ubs ta ntia l ev id en c e. Sa nk o h v . M uk a sey, 53 9 F
. 3d 45 6, 46 8 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. Un d e rth i s e x t r e me l y def e r e n t i a ls t a n d a r d , we w i l luphol d the ag ency ’ s deci si on i fi t i s “ supp or ted by r ea son abl e, s ubs ta nt i al, a nd pr o ba ti ve e vi den ce o n the re cor d c onsi dered as a w h ole. ” B inR a shed , 50 2 F
. 3d at 67016 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). Reve rs ali s warr anted only if “the e vi dence com pels a d i ffe r e n tr e s u l t, ” a n d we wi l ln o to v e r tu r n the a g e n c y ’ s fi n d i n g s j u s tb e c a u s e we m igh t h av e re ac h ed a d iffer en t c on c lu sio n . B a l ogun v. A shcroft, 374 F.3d 492 , 498 (7th C ir. 2004). An al i eni s e nt i tl ed t o w i thho l di ngo fr emov alunde rthe I N A i fhe c an sho w a “cl earpro babi l i ty” thathi s “ l i fe o r freedo m w ou ld be threaten ed

. . . bec au se o f t h e ali en ’s ra ce, r el i gi on, n at ionali ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul ar social group , or p oli tical op inion.” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1231(b)(3)( A ); A un g v . Go nz a les , 495 F.3d 74 2, 74 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). Sim il ar l y, an a l i en i s e nti tl ed to pro tect i on a gainst r em ova l unde r the CAT i f he c a n s ho w i t i s “ mor e l i k e l y tha n not” th at h e w ill be tor tu re d if rem ov ed

. Aung, 49 5 F
. 3d at 747. A l though these sta nd ar ds ar e the sa m e, bo th i m pose a m ore stringen t test th an the “w ell -f ou nd ed fear” sta nd ard em p loy ed in a sy lu m ca se s. See Firm a nsja h v . Go nz a les , 424 F.3d 598, 605 (7th Cir. 2005). T h ere ar e tw o w ays that an al i en can show he is ent i t l e d t o wi thh o l di ng o f r e mov a l

. F i r s t, he c a n show th at he w as su bj ect to p as t pers ecu tion, w hich tri ggers a re b u tt ab le p re su m p tio n of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . See 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (b )(1) ; Iraso c v. M uk a sey, 52 2 F. 3d 727, 72 9- 30 (7t h C ir. 20 08)
. S eco nd , i n the abse nce o fany evi dence o fpa stpe r se cut i o n, a n a l i enc ans ho w tha t i t i s m ore like ly th an n otth at h e w i l l su ffer fu tu re p er se c u tio n if re m ov ed

. See 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (b )(2) ; BinRashed , 5 02 F. 3d at6 71
. W e h ave s ai d tha t per se cut i o n e nt ai l s “pu ni sh

m ent o r the infl i ctio n o f h ar m f orpol i ti cal, r el i gi ous, o r othe r re aso ns t hat thi s co untry does not re cogni ze asN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 17 l egi ti m at e.” DeS o u z a v . INS , 999 F.2d 115 6, 1158 ( 7th Cir. 1 9 9 3 )
. A n d w h i l e p e r s e c u t i o nc a n b e e s t ab l i s h e d f r o m a sin gle p ar tic u lar ly vic iou s in c id en t, se e D anda n v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567, 573 (7th Cir. 2003), not e very exam ple o f m ist re at m en t rise s t o th e le ve l of p er se c u tio n, s e eNaki b uka v. G o nz a les , 4 21 F
. 3d 47 3, 4 76 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( “An a sy l um ap p li can t ne e d n o t sh ow that her li fe or freedo m w ere thre ate ned, but the har m she suffered m ust r i se abov e the l e v e l o f ‘ mer e ha r a s s men t ’ a nd mus t r e s ul tf ro m m or e than unp l eas ant or eve n dangero us condi ti ons in he r hom e cou nt ry. ”). The IJ rej ecte d K han’s past- perse cuti on a rgum ents, c o nc l ud i ngthat the a t t a c k s Kh a n s uffe r e d a tthe h a nd s ofthe M QM di d not a m ount t o perse cuti on a nd that K ha n fail ed to establish th at his att a c k e r s w ere m oti vate d b y hi s pol i ti cal bel i ef s. W hethersubstanti al ev i dence s uppo r ts the fi r stc o nc l us i o n i s a cl o se que st i o n, b u t w e n ee d n otad d re ss it; th e re c or d d oe s n otc o m p el a co nt r ary r es ult as t o the s ec o nd c o nc l us i o n, a nd the age ncy’ s r ej ecti on ofK han’s cl ai m o fpast perse cuti on ca n be su st aine d o n th i s ba si s al o ne . To b e co ns i der ed per se cuti o n, a n a l i en ’ s m i st r ea tmentmustbe “ be ca us e o fthe al i en’ s . . . pol i ti calopini on. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 231(b) ( 3) ( A )
. Kh an te st i fi ed th athe qui t th e M QM a nd s to pped co nt r ibut i ng m oneyto the or ganizati on be cause he di sag re ed w i th i ts vi ol ent t actic s. H e a rgues that the chain ofev ents cul m in ating i n hi s k i dn apping com pel s the co ncl usi on that he was tar get ed beca use o fhi s pol i ti calbel i ef s. S ubs ta nt i al ev i den ce s uppo r ts the IJ ’ s o ppo si te c o nc l usion, however

. Kh an te sti fi ed that the M QM exto rt ed18 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252

I n a n un publ i s he d or der, we pr evi ous l y r efused to fi nd 6 p o l i t ical p ersecu tion w he n th e M Q M extor ted m on ey fro m all n ei g hb o ri n g b u sin es se s. S ee Reh m an v. K eisl er, 252 F. Ap p’ x 752, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( “[ A] n a l i en ’ s r efus al t o c oope rate with a pol i t i c al p ar t y doe s no t, withoutm or e, c om pel a c onc l us i on o f p o lit ic a l p er se cu tio n .”). m oneyand proper ty fro m P aki sta ni s ind i scr i m i natel y, w hi ch und er m i nes hi s a rgum ent that he w as tar get ed for his op p o s it io n to M Q M ’s vi olent act ions. T he record sugge sts thatthe M QM was m oti vate d m or e by fi na nc i alg ain r athe r tha n po l i ti ca lphi l o so phy

. The M Q M de m an d ed pa ym en t from every p erson i n K ha n’s ne i g hb o r ho o d, i nc l udi ngtho se who ha d ne ve r j oi ne d the or gani zati on , and M QM m em ber s be gan a ssa ult i ng Khan o nl y a ft e r h e s t o p p e d h i s p a y me n t s a n d a p p r o a c h ed th e pol i ce

— not w hen he l eft the o rg ani zati on. Fur ther m or e, 6 the a pp ar ent g oalo fKh an’ s k i dn apping w as to deter hi m f r o m co nt a c t i ngthe p o l i c e r e g a r di ngthe c a rj a c k i ng. T h e e vid en c e in d ica te s t h at th e M Q M w an te d to av oid cr i m i na lpr o se cut i o n o fi ts mem bers f o rthe i rc arj ac k i ng and ki dn apping acti vi ti es

— a concl usi on confi rm ed by K han’s te sti m ony th at p ol i ce had l aunched an eff or t t o cr ack do wn o n the o r g an i za ti o n’ s vi o l en t ac ti o ns

— ra ther th an t o p u n ish K h an for h is p olit ica l op in ion
. Se e, e . g. , D oe v. G o nz a les , 484 F. 3d 445, 447- 48 ( 7th Cir
. 2007 ) ( hom i ci des m oti vate d sol el y b y a desi re to el i m i nate w i tness es to a crim e w ere not on accou nt of p rotecte d groun d ). Despit e hi s f ai l ure to est abl i sh past perse c uti on, Kh an c an st i l ldem onst ra te he i s e nti tl ed to withhol ding of r emov ali fhe s ho w s t ha t it i s m o r e l i k ely tha n n o t th atheN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 19 woul d s ufferpe r se cut i on upo n h i s r etur n t o Pa k i st an . H o wev er, the IJ r ej ec te d Khan ’ s ar g um en ts , a nd the r e c o r d d o e s n o tc o mp e la c o n t r a r y c o n c l u s i o n . K h a n c l a i ms he fe a r s r e t urningt o P a k i s t a n b e c a us e the MQM h as a pol i cy of a tt ac ki ng tho se w ho info rm pol i ce about i ts act iviti es. Yet K han has no t l i ved i n Paki sta n si nce 19 98, and i t i s har d to se e h ow t he M QM co uld thi nk he has an y in for m at ion of va lu e t o p ro vid e t h e p olic e a t t h is poi nt. W e doubt that pol i ce a re st i l li nvest i gating a c arj ac kin g th at is m or e th an a d ec ad e o ld

— or m ore i m p ortantl y, tha tthe MQM s t i l lr e memb e r s Kh a n’ s de c i s i o n to re porti t. W e a l so note thatdespi te th e num er ous threa ts Kha n c l ai ms the MQM h a s ma de a g a i ns th i m, MQM m em ber s have never harm ed any of K han’s extended f am i l y s ti l lr em ai ni ng i n P akis tan. In any eve nt, bec ause K han fear s M QM r eta l i ati on ba sed o n hi s deci si on t o r epo r t a ca rj ac k i ng an d no t be ca us e o f hi s po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n, hi s fea rofper se cut i o n i s no t ba se d o n a pr o te ct ed g r o und en tit lin g K h an to w ith h old in g fro m rem ov al. F i n a l ly, K h an ch alle n ge s t h e IJ’s c on c lu sio n th at h e is not e nt i tl ed to pr o te ct i o n a g ains t r emov alunde rthe CA T. “ To r t ur e , ” a s the t e r m i s u s e d b y the CAT , i ncl ud es “any ac t by wh i ch se ver e pai n orsuffer i ng, wh ether p h ys ica l o r m en ta l, is in te n tio n ally in flict ed o n a p er so n . . . by oratthe i nsti gat i on o f o r w i th the co nsent oracqui escence of a publ i c o ffi ci alo r othe r perso n acting i n an offi ci alcapaci ty. ” 8 C. F. R. § 208. 18(a) ( 1)
. A l though K h an ’ s a r g u m en ts foc u s o n sh ow in g t h at h e w ill l ike ly suffer “ p er secuti on” and i gnor e whether he i s l i kel y t o suffer“t or ture , ” a p eti ti oner ’ s f ai l ure to show a cl ear prob ab i l i ty offuture perse cuti on a l so m eans he cannot20 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 sh ow a like lih oo d th a t h e w ill be t or tu re d

. Se e, e . g. , M itev v . INS , 67F. 3d 1325 , 13 30 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( c itin g to rture as an exam p le ofpers ecu tion).

C. M ot i on t o r eopen K h a n ’ s fina l arg u m en t is th at th e B IA err on eo u sly den i ed hi s m o ti o n t o reope n h i s r emov alpr o ce eding . The BI A has di sc r et i o n t o r eo pena r emov alpr o ce eding w hen an al i en prese nts new evi dence that “is m ate ri al and wa s no t a v a i l ab l e a nd c o ul d no t ha v e b e en di sco ve r ed o rpr es en te d a t th e f o r m erhear i ng . ” 8 C. F
. R. § 1 003. 2( a) , ( c) ( 1)
. In his m oti on t o re open, Kh an pro vi ded affi davi ts fr om two i nd i vi du al s who tr eat ed hi m ata cl i ni c devo ted to hel ping peopl e in K h an’ s pos i ti on

— alt h ou gh K h an d id n ots ee k t h is t re at m en t u n til 20 06 , w ell afterhi s r em ova lhear i ng co ncl ud ed. These affid avi ts d e s c r ib e th e p h y s i c a le v i d e n c e o fa n d s y mp t o ms as so c iat ed w ith K h an ’s k id n a p p in g a n d d iag n os e h is m entali l l nesse s. Thi s, i n K ha n ’s vi ew , co nsti tuted new evi dence on the i ssue ofwh etherhi s m entali l l ness preve nt ed hi m fr o m fi l i nga t i m ely a sy l um a ppl i ca ti o n a nd whe the rthe MQM p e r s e c ut e d h i m. T he BI A di s a g r e e d. W e pause to note that w e have l i m i ted j uri sd ict ion to re vie w t h is c laim

. See P il ch v. A shcroft, 35 3 F
. 3d 585, 58 6- 87 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( hol ding that n o j uri sdic ti on e xi sts to consi der a d en i alo fa m oti on t o re open bas ed on di sc re tio n ar y d et er m in at ion s); a c c o r d Dura n tv . INS , 39 3 F.3 d 11 3, 11 5 (2 d C ir. 20 04 ) (ord er s o f rem ov al a n d d en ials ofm oti ons to reopen “ ar e s uffi ci entl y c onnecte d” that perm i tting r evi ew o fthe l att erwh en the I N A bar s r evi ewN os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 21 ofthe f or m er“would pro vi de an i m p roper back door m et h od of ch alle n gin g a rem ov al or d er ”); Rodr iguez v. A shcroft, 25 3 F.3d 79 7, 80 0 (5th C ir. 20 01 ) (“It is a x iom at ic tha t i f we a r e di v e s t e d o f j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e v i e w an or i gi na l de t e r mi na t i o n b y the Bo a r d

. . . , we mus t a l so be d ivest e d of j urisd iction to review the B oard ’s den ialof a m o ti o n t o r eo peno n the [ sa m e g r o unds]. ”)
. In thi s co nte x t, ou r re vie w is lim ite d to d et er m in in g w h et h er th e B IA offer ed a suffi ci ent re aso n f or decl i ni ng to r eopen K h a n ’s c as e. Kebe v. G o nz a les, 473 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2007 ). The B I A m ayde cl i ne t o r eo pena r emov alpr o ce eding i f i t c o nc l ud e s t he peti ti oner f ai l ed to p r o v i de p r e vi o u s l y u n a v a i l ab l e , ma t e r i a le v i d e n c e , a n d we re vi ew the BIA’s re fu sa l to r eopen o n thes e g ro und s for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . IN S v . D o herty, 50 2 U
. S. 31 4, 32 3 (19 92 ); Kebe, 473 F.3d at 857. W e w il l up hold the B I A ’s deci si on “ ‘ unle ss i t w as m ade w i thout ra ti onalex p lan ati on, i nexpli cabl y depar ted from establ i shed pol i ci es, o r re ste d on a n im perm i ssibl e ba si s s uch as i nvi dio us di scri m i nati on. ’ ” P a vly k, 469 F. 3d at 1091 ( quoti ng Bo yk o v v . A shc rof t, 3 8 3 F
. 3 d 5 2 6 , 53 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) )
. T h e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s sa i d th at m o ti o ns to r eo pen ar e di sf av o r ed, a nd thus Khanf ac es a he av y uphi l lb at tl e to c onv i nc e us th at th e B IA err ed

. D o herty, 502 U
. S. at32 3. W e ar e co nv i nc ed th e B I A di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n. Fi rs t, Kh an di d not g o to the t re atm ent c en te r u n til after hi s o r i g i na lr emov alhe ar i ng, s tr o ng l y s ug g es tingthat he d id n otp u rs u e h is c laim s w ith th e re q u isit e d ilige n c e. See 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( sta ti ng tha t new i nfo rm ati on22 N os. 06

- 3966 & 07

- 2252 shoul d be incapabl e o fhav ing be en “di sco ver ed orpre sente d at the f or m erhear i ng”)
. S eco nd , the “new ev i dence” w as not m ate ri al

. A l though the IJ co ncl ud ed the att acks K han suffer ed w er e no t s uffi cien tly seve re to co nsti tute perse cuti on, he a l so concl ud ed that K han had not est abl ish ed that the a tta cks w er e pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d orthat K han w as l i kel y t o sufferpol i ti cal l y m oti vate d perse cuti on i fr etur ne d to Paki sta n. The affi davi ts subm i tte d w i th th e mo t i o n t o r e o p e n d o n o t a d d r e s s th e s e l a t t e r c o nclus io ns and therefore d o not u nd erm ine th e IJ’ s ul ti m at e de ci si o n t o de ny r el i ef

. S i m i l ar l y, the IJ ’ s co nc lu sio n th at K h a n ’s a sy lu m ap p lica tio n w as u n tim ely w as base d on hi s dete rm i nati on that K h an h ad notes tabl i s h e d th a th i s e mo t i o n a la n d p s y c h o l o g i c a lp r o b l e ms j us ti fi ed th e f o ur - y ea rde l ayi n fi l i ngthe a ppl i ca ti o n. The affi davi ts d iscussi ng Khan’s m entalst ate do notaddress w h et h er it w ou ld h av e b ee n u n re as on ab le t o e x p ec t h im to fi l e a ti m el y a syl um appli cation in l i ght o fthat me n t a ls t a t e . F i n a l l y, the “ne w e v i d e n c e ” wa s n o tn e w. The affi davi ts r epor ted thatKh an suffer ed fro m sy m pto m s as so ci at ed wi thde pr es si o n, a nxi ety, a nd fr us tr at i o n, b uta l so no te d tha t he w as abl e to o bt ain a nd m aint ain e m pl o y m en t, c ar e f o rhi s ch i l dr en, a nd f o cus on hi s future; the IJ co ns id er ed si m i l ari nfo rm ati on at K han’s r em ova lhear i ng. For t h e f o regoing reason s, th e pe titi ons f or review are D I S MI S S ED i n pa r t f o rl ac ko fj ur i sd ictiona nd D ENI ED i n part
.

1- 29- 08