NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0787n.06 Case No. 08- 4396 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT SAHIBI JON URUNBAEV, P etitioner , v. ER IC H. H OLD ER , J R. , A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N AP P EA LS

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , C hie f Judg e , BO G G S and C OOK, C ir c uitJudg e s. AL I CE M. BATCHELDER, Chi ef Jud ge. Sa h ib ij o n U r

unb a e v , a M u s li m n a ti v e of Uzbekistan, seeks re view of the order s of the I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) a nd the B oard of

I mmigration Ap pe a ls ( “ B I A” ) r e fu sin g to e xcu se his un tim e ly fi lin g of the a sylum

a pp lic a tio n a

nd de nyinghim withhol d i n g of re moval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) (2006), a

nd the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) , 8 C.F.R. § 1208

. 1 6 (c )(2) (2009). Ur

un ba e v e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s o n F e br ua ry 16 , 2 00 1, but di d n ot ap ply fo r a sylum

un til

a t le a st 2 00 4. He ha s c on c e de d h is r e mov a bil ity , und e r 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 7( a )( 1) (B ), fo r r e ma ini ngin the c ountr

y lon g e r t ha n p e rm itt e d. Ur

un ba e v c on te nd s th a t he su ff e re d p a st p e rs e c uti on

in Uzbekistan, and that he ha s a we ll-founded f ear of per secution shoul d h e b e co m p elled to re turn. He c on c e de s th a t hi s a sylum a pp lic a tio n w a s not ti mel y fi led, but he argue s th a t th e un tim e lin e ss2

should be excused due to cha ng ed cir cumstance s in Uzbekistan. Urunba ev’s a

rguments were first consider ed in re moval proce eding s befor e an I J on November

1, 2006. The I J rec ounted t he evidence presente d by Urunba ev, found him cr edible, and while ack nowledg ing that he had pr esente d some evidenc e that “r elatively distant” relatives and friends r emainingin Uzbekistan had bee n subject to some violence by the g overnment, held that Urunba ev had not shown c hang ed cir cumstance s in Uzbekistan with respect to his own f am ily or himself sufficie nt to ex cuse the untimeliness of his asylum filing. The I J further held that Urunba ev had not demonstrate d that he had suffe red perse cution in the past in U zbekistan, a nd had not shown either a well-founde d fea

r that he would be perse cuted or a cle ar likelihood that he w ould be tortured should he retur

n to that co u n t ry . The I J there fore denied Ur unbaev’ s petition for withholding of

remova l under the I

NA and the CAT, respe ctively

. See Fang Huang v. M ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 651 (6th Cir. 2008). The B oard of I mmigration Appeals summarily aff irmed the I J ’s finding s, add i ng no substantive comments of its own. “When the B I A adopts the I J ' s rea soning, we review the I J ' s decision i n order to determine whether there was a

n abuse of

discretion. ‘A n abuse of discretion ca

n be shown whe n the I J or Boa rd off ers no r ational explanation, inex plicably depar ts from established policies, or rests on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or

g roup.’” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 395 (6th Cir. 2006) (q u o t i n g Den k o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 ( 6th Cir. 200 3 ) )

. E s s e n ti a ll y , th is me an s th a t “ [w ]h e r e th e B I A a d o p ts th e I J' s r e a s o n in g , th e c o urt r e v ie ws the I J ' s decision direc tly to de termine whether the decision of the BIA should be upheld on a ppeal.” Atugah v. Holder , 321 F. App’x 431, 435 (6th Cir. 2009)

. We r eview the I J ' s fac tual finding s under th e d e fer ential substantial-evide nce sta ndard, Hassan v. Gonzales , 4 0 3 F. 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 4 (6 thCir. 2005),3

meaningthat “finding s of fa ct ar e ‘conclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to con clu de t o t he co nt rary ,'" Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 64 F .3 d 7 00 , 7 02 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) (q uo tin g 8 U .S. C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )). Withholding-of- remova l determinations ar e fa ctual findings. Atugah , 3 21 F. App’x at 435. A ccor dingly , we must uphold the I J ’s denials of w ithholding of re moval under the I NA and t h e CAT so long a s they are supported by

substantial evidence and the r ecor d does not compel a findingto the contra ry . Kostic v. Holder , No. 08-3675, 2009 WL1941350, at *3 (6th Cir. J uly 8, 2009). We d o n ot h ave jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the I J’s de te rm inatio n that U ru nb a e v’ s a sylum

c la im is tim e-ba rre d. An alien must file his application for asylum within one y ear of hi s arr ival in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(2) (B ), unless he c an de m o n s trate to the satisfaction of the Attorney Gene ral “ either the exis tence of cha ng ed cir cumstance s which mater ially aff ect the

a p p li c an t’ s e li g ib il it

y f o r a s ylum o r e xtr a o r d in ar y c ir c u ms ta

n c e s r e lati n g to th e d e la

y in filing an application within [t he one- y ear period],” 8 U.S.C. § l158(a)(2) (D). A lthough 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 58(a) (3), which provide s that “[n] o court shall have jurisdiction to reviewany deter mination of the Attorney Gene ral unde r par ag raph (2),” appea rs t o deprive us of all jurisdiction to review the I J ’s finding , we have he ld that “our re view of a sy lum applications denied for untimeliness [ is barre d] onl y when the appea l se eks revie w of discretionar y or fa ctual questions, but not when the a ppeal se eks re view of constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006). We h av e re p ea t edly held, howeve r, that “[t] he existence of ‘ chang ed circ umstances’ that materia lly aff ect elig ibilit y for asylum is a pr edominantly fac tual deter

mination, which will invariably turn on the facts of a give n case .” Nesterov v . Dep’ t of Homeland Sec

. , 335 F. Ap p ’x 5 9 0 , 5 9 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 748). The I J ’s dec ision that4

Ur un ba e v’ s f a ilure to t ime ly

fi le his pe tit ion wa s n ot e xcu se d b y c ha ng e d c ountr

y c ir c ums tanc e s is a fa ctual dete rmination, and there fore beyond our re view. See F ang Huang , 523 F.3d at 650-51. We do have jurisdiction to revie w the I J ’s denia l of Urunba ev’s withholding of re moval claims under the I

NA and the CAT. Haddad v. Holde r , N o. 08 -3 55 9, 20 09 WL13 91 52 4, a t *4 (6 th Cir. May 15, 2009). The I J articulated the applica ble standar d and re counted the e vidence prese nted by Urunba ev, including hi s inability to show that he previously had been persecuted or tortured, or that his wife and c hildren — who had stay ed in Uzbekistan — had eve r experienc ed per secution or torture. B eca

use he ha d not made that showing , in order to mer it withholdi ng of re moval Urunba ev ha d to de mon str a te the c le ar pr ob a bil ity that he wo uld su ff

e r su c h tr e a tme nt i n th e futur e we re he to return to Uzbekistan. See F ang Huang , 523 F.3d at 651. The I J conclude d that he had not met the clea r proba bility standard, particula

rly in light of the c omplete abse nce of problems experienc ed by his imm ediate f

amily either befor e, or since, his departur e fr om Uzbekistan. W e ca nnot say that the evidenc e in this recor d compels a c onclusion contra ry to that rea ched by the I J and af firmed by the BIA, or that a

ny circ umstances sug g est that the B I A abuse d its discretion in affirmingt h e I J ’s de te rm inatio ns . For the fore g oing r easons, we dismiss the petition to the extent that it se eks re view of the I J ’s finding , aff

irmed by the B I A, that Urunba ev’s a sy lum application is tim e-ba rre d. We deny

the pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i n a ll o the r r e sp e c ts.