## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 29 46

__ __ __ __ __ _
Lui s Al on so Mart in ez-Gu zm an , *

* Pet it io ne r, * * Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e

v. * Bo ard of I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s. * Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral * [UNPUBLISHED] of th e Uni te d S ta te s, * * Res po nd en t. *

*

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Apri l 2 0, 2 01 2 Fi le d: May 22 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Lu i s Alo ns o Mar ti ne z-Gu zm an en te red th e Uni te d St at es in 19 93 f r o m El Sal va do r on a to ur is t vi sa an d ha s rem ai ne d he re si nc e. In 20 07
, Guz m an was

se rv ed wit h a Not ic e to App ear, ch arg in g hi m wit h rem ov ab il it y pu rs u a n t t o th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act § 23 7( a)(1 )(B)
, 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (B). Guz m an fil ed pe ti ti on s fo r as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. The im m ig rat io n jud ge de ni ed
Guz m an 's ap pl ic at io ns , fin di ng Guz m an 's pe ti ti on fo r as y lu m un ti mel y an d,
al te rn at iv el y , de te rm in in g Guz m an ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h he ha d su ffer ed fro m pa st

pe rs ecu ti on , or well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on , in El S a lv ad or

. Bec au seGuz m an fai le d to es ta bl is h a cl ai m fo r as y lu m , t h e im m ig rat io n jud ge fo un d th at

Guz m an ne ces sa ril y fai le d to m eet th e hi gh er bu rd en ne ces sa ry to m ak e o ut a cl ai m fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. The Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s ("B IA") affi rm ed
,

an d Gu zm an pe ti ti on s fo r ou r rev ie w of t he BIA's de ci si on

.

Fi rs t, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA's de te rm in at ion s Guz m an 's as y lu m
pe ti ti on was ba rred as un ti m el y fil ed
, an d Guz m an fai le d to de m on st rat e ch an ge d or

ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces whi c h c o u l d ha ve br ou gh t hi m wit hi n a st at ut or y

ex cep ti on to th e on e-year fil in g de ad l i n e. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 3) ; Ch ib we v. Hol de r, 56 9 F .3d 81 8, 8 19 -2 0 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Seco nd
, al th ou gh Gu z man rai se s two arg um en ts we m ay tre at as "co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of la w," whi ch 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D) tre at s as

ex cep ti on s to th e ge ne ral juri sd ic ti on al ba r on ou r rev ie w, ne it he r are su cces sf ul

. W e 1 reject Guz m an 's cl ai m th e BIA m ad e a mi s ta ke of la w by fai li ng to art ic ul at e a

reas on ab le ba si s fo r affi rm in g th e im m ig rat io n jud ge ' s de ci si on

. See Beg na v. Ash cro ft, 39 2 F.3 d 30 1, 30 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ("[ T] h e BIA's us e of a su m m ary affi rm an ce pr oc es s do es no t it se lf vi ol at e pe ti ti on ers ' du e pr oc es s rig ht s." ); Mo la th wa v. Ashc ro ft, 3 90 F.3d 55 1, 5 53 (8t h Cir. 20 04 ) ("[ T] he BIA's de ci si on to st ream li ne [th e pe ti ti on er's ] cas e is im m un e fro m ou r rev ie w. Add it io n a l l y, th e BIA's

st ream li ne d pr oc ed ur es do no t vi ol at e du e pr oc es s." ). Fu rth er, we are pr ecl ud ed fro m

rev ie win g Gu zm an 's a lt ern at iv e arg um en t t ha t th e Uni te d Nat io ns Pro to co l re la ti ng
to th e St at us of Refu ge es , whi ch co nt ai ns no fil in g de ad li ne an d to whi ch th e Uni te d

To th e ex te nt Guz m an rai se s ot he r arg u men t s ex pr es si ng hi s di ss at is fact io n 1 wit h th e im

m ig rat io n jud ge 's de te rm in at io n Guz m an fai le d t o de m on st rat e ch an ge d ci rcu m st an ces , we ho ld th es e are no t th e types of cl ai m s Co ng res s in te nd ed us to ha ve ju ris di ct io n to co ns id er. See, e.g ., M an an i v. Fi li p, 55 2 F.3 d 89 4, 90 0 n.3 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 00 9) ("A pe ti ti on er m ay no t crea te th e juri sd ic ti on th at Co ng res s ch os e to r e mo v e si m pl y by cl oa ki ng an ab us e of di sc ret io n arg um en t in co ns ti tu ti on al ga rb .") (in te rn al
qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.
-2

-St at es is a si gn at or y , tru m ps th e st at ut or y li m it at io ns in 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (B) an d (D). "Al th ou gh th is arg um en t pr es en ts a qu es ti on of la w un de r [8 U.S.C.] § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D), we m ay no t co ns id er it be cau se [Gu zm an ] fai le d to rai se th e is su e be fo re t he BIA." Ma na ni , 55 2 F .3d at 9 00

.

Fi na ll y , we ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Guz m an 's cl ai m th e BIA im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng o f r e mo v a l. See id

. Howev er, ba se d on th e

reco rd be fo re us , we ho ld su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e BIA's al te rn at iv e ho ld in g th at be cau se Guz m an fai le d to pr ov e a pa st or well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

ne ces sa ry to rece iv e as y lu m , Guz m an ne ces sa ril y fai le d to pr ov e he was el ig ib le fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. See Mal on ga v. Hol de r, 62 1 F.3 d 75 7, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( " We c o n s i d e r a d mi n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t u n d e r t h e d e f

e r e n t i a l

su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e st an da rd ."); Mal go na v. Mu ka se y , 54 6 F.3d 54 6, 5 51 n.2 (8t h
Ci r. 20 08 ) (" Wi t h h o l d i ng of rem ov al
, un li ke as y lu m , is no t su bjec t to a on e-year fil in g per io d. . . . The cl ear p ro ba bi li ty st an da rd fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al is m or e

on ero us th an th e wel l-f

ou nd ed fear st an da rd for asylu m .").

Acco rd in gl y , co ns is te nt wit h thi s opi nio n, w e dis m iss G uz m an ' s pe tit io n fo r ou r

rev ie w to th e ex te nt we la ck juri sd ic ti on

. Fu rth er, fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we de ny th e rem ai nd er o f th e p et it io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-