FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NO VE MB ER 4 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [D O N O T P U B L IS H ] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12924 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 902- 731 & A 95- 902- 732 NEST OR ABEL SANCHEZ, O L G A L U C I A O T A L O R A , K A R O L B I B I A N A S A N C H E Z , P A U L A L O R E N A S A N C H E Z , P e titio n e r s , 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.

________________________ Pe t i t i o n f

o r R e v i e w o f

a n O r de r o f

t he B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a t io n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 2, 2005) B efo re C A R N E S , H U L L a n d P R Y O R , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Sanche z is the prima ry a pp lic ant. Sanche z’s wi fe and tw o chil dren a

rederivativ ea

pp lic ants 1 and, therefore, re ly

on his asylum application. Sanchez does not raise any challeng e in h i s b ri ef to the denial of CAT re lief. When an 2 appellant f

ails to offer

argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned. See Sepulv eda v. United States Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11 Cir. 2005). Acc ording ly , this iss ue is not discussed th further . 2 N e s t orA be l S a nc he z pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) f

i na l or de ra f

f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on w hi c h de ni e d hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd 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 a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) a nd the U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( “C A T ” ) . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e d e n y S a n c h e z ’s p e titio n in p a r t a n d d is m is s it in p a r t.

I . B AC KG RO UN D O n M a y 14, 1999, S a nc he z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C ol om bi a , e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s anon- i m m i gr a ntvi s i t or . M or e tha n thr e e y e a r s l a t e r , i n J une 2 0 0 2 , S a n c h e z f

i l e d a n ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , a n d C AT r e lie f , a lle g in g p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a n im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n . O n J u ly 1 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , S a n c h e z w a s is s u e d aN o tic e to A p p e a r , c h a r g in g th a t h e h a d r e m a in e d in the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thouta uthor i z a t i on. T h e I J d e n ie d S a n c h e z ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a nd C A T r e l i e f

. A n a l i e n m a y appl y f ora s y l um i f

he “ de m ons tr a t e s by c l e a ra nd 2 c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e ap p lic a tio n h a s b e e n f ile dw ith in 1 y e a ra f

te rth e d a teBe cau s e S anche z’s removal proc eeding s commence d after April 1, 1997, the permanent 3 rules of theIlle gal Imm i gration Refor m and Immigra

nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (“ IIRIRA”), g overn his petition for review. 3 of the al i en’ s a rr i val i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2)( B ). S anchez a dm i tt e d tha thi s appl i c a t i on w a s notf i l e d w i thi n one y e a r . H ow e ve r , i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s m a y s t i l l c ons i de ra n unt i m e l y appl i c a t i on “ i f the a l i e n de m ons tr a t e s t o the sa t i sf ac t i on of the A tt orney G ener al ei ther the exi st ence of changed ci rc um st ance s w hi ch m at er i al l y a ff

ec tthe appl i ca nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um or extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the de l a y i n f i l i ng a n appl i c a t i on w i thi n the pe r i od s pe c i f i e d . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( D ) . T he I J f ound tha tS a nc he z ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s t i m e ba rr e d, a nd tha the ha d note s t abl i s he d e xc e pt i ona l a nd/ or e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s f o rn o t f ilin g w ith in o n e y e a ro f h is a rr iv a l. A s f o rS a n c h e z ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, th e I J n o te d th a t it has “ som e c on ce rns” re gardi ng S anchez’ s c re di bi l i ty a nd thatS anchez’ s c l ai m w as “i n su ff icien tl y d o cu m en ted .” H o w ev er , th e I J u lt im ately d en ied S an ch ez ’s appl i ca t i on for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al on the m er i t s, det erm i ni ng thatS anchez had

“ note s t abl i s he d tha ti f

he w a s now t o r e turn t o C ol om bi a , i ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n not th a t h e w o u ld b e s u b

je c t to p e r s e c u tio n .” T he B I A s um m a r i l y a f

f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, a nd S a nc he z f i l e d the pr e s e nt p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON4

A . A s yl um W ith r e g a r d to S a n c h e z ’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , th e I J d e te rm in e d th a t h is appl i c a t i on w a s unt i m e l y a nd tha tS a nc he z f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e c ha nge d or e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h w o u ld e x c u s e h is u n tim e ly ap p lic a tio n . T h is C o u rt h as p re v io u sly d eter m in ed th at itis w ith o u t j u risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J’s det erm i nat i on s r egar di ng the t i m el i ness of an al i en’ s a sy l um appl i ca t i on . S ee M e ndoz av. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11 C i r . 2003) ( not i ng th 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) “ di ve s t s ourC our tof j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w ade c i s i on re gardi ng w hether a n al i en com pl i ed w i th the on e- ye art i m e l i m i tor es t abl i shed e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tw oul d e xc us e hi s unt i m e l y f i l i ng” ) ; F a hi m v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G en. , 27 8 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 17 (11 C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ A s t o the deni al th of the r e que s tf

ora s y l um a s be i ng unt i m e l y , w e hol d tha tf e de r a l c our t s do notha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the A tt orne y G e ne r a l ’ s de c i s i on a s t o t i m e l i ne s s of s uc h a re qu es t . ”) . A ft erthi s C ou rti ss ued these deci si on s, C on gres s e nact ed the R E A L ID A ct of 2005, P ub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 S t a t . 231 ( 2005) . T he R E A L I D A c tm a de se vera l changes t o h ow court s a re t o revi ew pet i t i on s f or re vi ew . F or exam pl e, u n d e rth e R E AL I D A c t , n o s e c t i o n “ wh i c h l i m i t s o re l i m i n a t e s j u d i c i a l r e v i e w, shal l be construed as prec l ud i ng re vi ew of const i tut i on al cl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw r a is e d u p o n ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w f

ile d w ith a n ap p r o p r ia te c o u r t o f ap p e a ls in5

a c c or da nc e w i th thi s s e c t i on. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) ; s e e a l s o B a l ogun v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , – F . 3d –, 2005 W L 2333840, a t*2- 5 ( 11 C i r . S e pt . 26, th 2005) ( not i ng tha tunde rthe R E A L I D A c t ’ s a m e ndm e nt s c our t s of appe a l now h av e ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e q u es ti o n o f law as to w h eth er“a p etit io n er ’s c o n v ic tio n is a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) ” ) . H ow e ve r , “ [ t ] he t i m e l i ne s s of a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on i s notac ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m or que s t i on of

l a w c ove r e d by the R E A L I D A c t ’ s c ha nge s . ” C ha c on- B ot e r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , – F . 3d –, s l i p op. a t4 ( 11 C i r . O c t . 6, 2005) ( r e vi e w i ng th the R E A L ID A ctand con cl ud i ng thatdi sc re t i on ary or f ac tual det erm i nat i on s, such as th e tim elin es s o f a n as ylu m ap p li ca ti o n , co n ti n u e to fa ll o u tsid e th is C o u rt’s j ur i s di c t i on a nd tha tthe t i m e l i ne s s i s s ue i s notac ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m orque s t i on of l aw un der the R E A L ID A ct ); se e a l so V as i l e v. G on za l es , 41 7 F . 3d 76 6, 76 8 (7 th C i r . 2005) ( c onc l udi ng tha te ve n a f t e rthe R E A L I D A c tc our t s of appe a l s do not ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w i s s ue s of t i m e l i ne s s c onc e rni ng a s y l um appl i c a t i ons be c a us e “ di s c r e t i ona ry orf a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons c ont i nue t o f a l l out s i de the ju r is d ic tio n o f

th e c o u r t o f

ap p e a ls e n te r ta in in g ap e titio n f o rr e v ie w ” ) . C ons e que nt l y , e ve n a f

t e rthe R E A L I D A c t , w e s t i l l l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the I J ’ s a nd B I A ’ s de ni a l of S a nc he z ’ s a s y l um c l a i m . S e e C ha c on- B ot e r o, – F . 3d a t–, s l i p op. a t4.6

A cc ordi ng l y, w e di sm i ss S anchez’ s pet i t i on as t o h i s a sy l um cl ai m for l ac k of j ur i s di c t i on. B . W i t h h ol d i n g of

R e m oval A lth o u g h w e d o n o t h av e ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J’s d en ial o f S an ch ez ’s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, w e do ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of the IJ ’ s deni al of hi s app l i ca t i on for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . F ahi m , 27 8 F . 3d at 1 2 1 8 . A s f

o r th e d en ial o f S an ch ez ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al, “ [w ]e r e vi e w the I J ’ s f

a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t . ” F or gue v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11 C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons th o m itte d ) . F u r th e rm o r e , [ u ]n d e r th is h ig h ly d e f

e r e n tia l te s t, w e a f

f irm th e I J ’s d e c is io n if i tis s u p p or t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c o r d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . T hus , w e do note nga ge i n ade novo rev i ew o f f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs by the I J . S i m i l a r l y , w e c a nnotf i nd, or c o n s i d e r , f

a c t s n o tr a i s e d i n th e a d m i n i s tr a t i v e f o ru m , n o rc a n we r e w e ig h th e e v id e n c e f

r o m s c r a tc h . Id. (quo t at i on m arks, ci t at i on s, and al t er at i on s om i tt ed). “A n a lie n s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A m u s t s h o w th a t h is 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, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” M endo zav. U ni t ed S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11 C i r . 2003) . “ A n a l i e n be a r s the th bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d orI f t healien de mon strate s p a st p ers e cut io n, th ereis a rebutta blepre sumption

that heha s a 4 well-founde d fea

r of f uture persecution. See Antipova v. United States Att’y Gen., 392 F .3d 1259, 12 64(1 1 Cir . 2 00 4) ; 8 C .F .R. § 2 08 .16(b )(1 )(i ). I f, ho wever, thealien doe s n ot e sta bli shpa st th perse cution, he bea

rs the burden of showing a well-founde d fea r of f uture persecution by

showing that: ( 1) hefe arspers e cuti on ba se d o n o neof

theenumera

te d grounds; ( 2) thereis a re a so na ble po ssibil ity

that hewi ll suf

fer p ers e cuti on

if heretur nsto his c ountr

y ; and (3 ) h ec ould not a

vo id perse cution by

rea sonably

reloc atingto a

nother part of his c ountry . See Antipova, 392 F .3d at 1264; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)( 2), (3) (i). 7 t ortured up on hi s r eturn t o the coun tryi n q uest i on . ” I d. F urtherm ore, “ [a ] n al i en c a nnotde m ons tr a t e tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound i f

the I J f i nds tha tthe a l i e n c oul d a voi d af utur e thr e a tby r e l oc a t i ng t o a nothe rpa r tof hi s c ountry . ” I d. 4 S anchez t es t i fi ed thathe w as threa t ened by T he R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F orce s of C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ”) w hen h e r ef used t o p rovi de i nform at i on he ac qu i re d a thi s j ob, tha the a nd hi s w i f e r e c e i ve d thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s f r om F A R C , a nd tha the a tt e nde d a n a c t i on boa r d m e e t i ng i n as outh B ogot ane i ghborhood a nd f ound hi s c a rw i ndow s s ha tt e r e d a nd athr e a t e ni ng not e a tt a c he d t o ar oc k i n the c a r . T he I J que s t i one d S a nc he z ’ s c r e di bi l i ty a s t o m a ny of the s e e ve nt s a nd det erm i ned thatS anchez had fa i l ed t o m ee thi s burden o f proof and p er suas i on that he w a s pe r s e c ut e d w hi l e i n C ol um bi a . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the I J s t a t e d tha tthe th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a lls d id n o t “m e a n th a t [ S a n c h e z ] w a s p e r s e c u te d in C o lu m b ia .” T he IJfurther c on cl ud ed thatthese event s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thati tw as m ore l i kel y than n otthatS anchez w ou l d b e per se cut ed i f r eturned t o C ol om bi a. T he IJ also n o ted th at S an ch ez “h ad fa il ed to es tab li sh th at h e w o u ldb e u n ab le to m o [v ]e8

t o ano ther partof C ol om bi a. ” W e r ea di l y c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s u p p o r ts th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f S a n c h e z ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.