### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 17, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 15267 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 95- 233- 111 & A 95- 233- 112 CAROLI NA M ARTI NEZ, J AI R O C AI C E DO , P et i t i o n ers, 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 et i t i on for R evi ew of a F i nal O rder o f th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( J une 17, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P et i t i on er s, C ar ol i na M art i nez ( “ M art i nez” ) a nd Ja i ro C ai ce do (“ C ai ce do ”) , ar e am arri ed coup l e a nd nat i ves a nd ci t i ze ns of C ol om bi a, S . A . C ai ce do w asT h eIJart i c u l at e d th e“ i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s an d

i mp l a u s ib i l i t i e s i nh e r

t e s t i m o ny . ”T h eIJ 1 also believe d that Petitioners’ ac tions were not those of persons fle eingperse cution. For example, neither Petitioner filed a n asylum application when f irst arrivingin the United States. They returne d to Columbia to attend Caice do’s father’s f uneral even though claimingto fea r perse cution, and remained there for substantial periods of time, Caice do for two months and Martinez for f

ive months. The B IA adopted theIJ ’s dec ision “except insofar a s the [IJ ] sugg ested that a ny 2 possible threat to [Petit ioners] would not have been country wide.” This ex ception is not material to our dispositi on of the instant petition for review. 2 adm i tt ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es i n O ct ob er20 00 as a vi si t or for busi ness . M art i nez w a s a dm i tt e d i n J a nua ry 2001 a s a vi s i t orf orpl e a s ur e . T he y di d notl e a ve the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s r e qui r e d a nd, i ns t e a d, f i l e d a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on w i th the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (I N S ”) i n F ebruary20 02 . T he IN S deni ed the appl i c a t i on a nd on M a r c h 22, 2002, r e f e rr e d P e t i t i one r s ’ c a s e t o a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) f

ora he a r i ng. I n a n or a l de c i s i on i s s ue d on J une 27, 2003, the I J f ound P et i t i on er s’ appl i ca t i on for a sy l um un t i m el y a nd deni ed i tfor thatre as on . A s a n a l t e rna t i ve gr ound, a nd a s the ba s i s f orde ny i ng P e t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i on f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, th e I J f

o u n d P e titio n e r s ’ te s tim o n y , s p e c if ic a lly M a r tin e z ’s , nots uf f i c i e nt l y de t a i l e d, c ons i s t e ntorbe l i e va bl e t o pr ovi de a pl a us i bl e a nd c ohe r e nt ac coun tof the basi s of [ M art i nez’ s] fe ar s a nd thu s [ i nsuffi ci ent ] t o est abl i sh her el i gi bi l i ty f

or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , or [prot ec t i on ] un der the T orture C onve nt i on pr ovi s i ons . ” P e t i t i one r s appe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B oa r d of 1 I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) . O n S e pt e m be r23, 2004, the B I A a f f i r m e d. 2Be causePetitioners’ removal proce eding s commence d after April 1, 1997, the e ffe ctive 3 date of the I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (“ IIRIRA”), this ca se is g overne d by the per manent provisions of the I NA, as a mended by

IIRIRA. See Antipova v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 392 F .3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004). At the outset, wenote that Petitioners abandone d their right to seek review of the B IA’s determination that they failed to e stablish eligibility for withholdingof removal under the United Nations Convention Against Tortureand Other Cruel, Inhuman, or De grading Tre atment o r P unishment, 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( c ), by no t c halleng ingthat determinatio n in the ir petition. See Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). 3 P et i t i on er s now as k u s t o revi ew i t s dec i si on . T hey c on t end t hat 3 1) the B I A e rr e d i n de ny i ng the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. A n a l i e n c a n appl y f or a s y l um i f the a l i e n “ de m ons tr a t e s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tthe appl i c a t i on ha s be e n f

i l e d w i thi n 1 y e a ra f

t e rthe da t e of

the a l i e n’ s a rr i va l i n the U n ite d S ta te s .” I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) , 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 (a )( 2)(B ). E ven i f the appl i ca t i on i s unt i m el y, i tm ay be consi dere d i f the al i en dem on stra t es t o the sa t i sf ac t i on of the A tt orney G ener al ei ther the e xi s t e nc e of

c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c tthe appl i ca nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f

or as yl um or extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance 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.

. . . IN A § 2 08 (a )( 2)(D ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2)( D ). T he B IA decl i ned t o con si der P e t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i on be c a us e P e t i t i one r s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e c ha nge d or e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s f ori t s unt i m e l i ne s s . P e t i t i one r s c ha l l e nge tha trul i ng here . 2 ) th e B I A e rr e d in f in d in g th e m in e lig ib le f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l.4

W e a ddr e s s P e t i t i one r s ’ c ont e nt i ons i n turn. I. N otw i ths t a ndi ng the B I A ’ s a uthor i ty t o c ons i de ra n unt i m e l y a s y l um appl i c a t i on w he r e the a l i e n m e e t s one of the e xc e pt i ons t o the one - y e a rf i l i ng de a dl i ne , “ no c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny de t e r m i na t i on of the A tt orne y G e ne r a l unde rs e c t i on 1158( a ) ( 2) . ” M e ndoz a v. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1286 n. 3 ( 11 C i r . 2003) . “ A ny de t e rm i na t i on” unde r§ 1158( a ) ( 2) th i nc l ude s the B I A ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha ta n a l i e n f a i l e d t o s how c ha nge d or extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s t o excuse an unt i m el y f i l i ng . M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at 1 2 8 7 . B e c a u s e P e titio n e r s c h a lle n g e to th e d e n ia l o f th e ira s y lu m ap p lic a tio n is ba s e d on s uc h de t e r m i na t i on, w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on d e n y in g th e irap p lic a tio n s . W e c on si der now P et i t i on er s’ chal l enge t o the B IA ’ s dec i si on thatthey a re in e lig ib le f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. II . A n a l i e n s houl d notbe r e m ove d t o a c ountry i f hi s orhe r“ l i f

e orf r e e dom w o u l d b e th reat en ed i n th atco u n try b ecau se o f th e al i en ’ s race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, m e m b e r s h i p i n a p a r t 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 . ” S e e I NA § 241( b) ( 3) , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . I f the a l i e n de m ons tr a t e s pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c o u n t o f

o n e o rm o r e o f

th e s e f a c to r s — r a c e , r e lig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e r s h ip in5

a p a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p o rp o litic a l o p in io n — h e o rs h e is p r e s u m e d to h a v e a w e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on ( on s uc h ba s i s ) unl e s s the gove rnm e ntr e but s the p resu m p t i o n . 8 C . F . R § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b )(1 )(i ). If, h o w ev er, th e al i en d o es n o test ab l i sh s uc h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of s how i ng a w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on by s how i ng tha t( 1) he ors he f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on one or m ore of the abov e f

ac t ors; (2) there i s are as on abl e possi bi l i ty he or s he w i l l suff er s u c h p e r s e c u tio n if

h e o rs h e r e tu rn s to h is o rh e rc o u n try ; a n d ( 3 ) h e o rs h e c o u ld n o t a v o id s u c h p e r s e c u tio n b y r e lo c a tin g to a n o th e rp a r t o f th e c o u n try , if

u n d e ra ll th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s i tw o u l d b e r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c tr e l o c a t i o n . Se e 8 C. F. R. § 208. 16( b) ( 2) . I f

c r e di bl e , the a l i e n’ s t e s t i m ony “ m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the [ a l i e n’ s ] bur de n of

pr oof w i thoutc orr obor a t i on. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287 ( q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ) . H e r e , i n de ny i ng w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , the B I A a dopt e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on d i scred i t i n g P et i t i o n ers’ cl ai m s (essen t i al l y M art i n ez’ s t est i m o n y) o f p ast p ersecu t i o n . P et i t i o n ers ch al l en g e th i s d eci si o n . W e rej ectth ei r ch al l en g e b ecau se the IJ ’ s, and t hu s the B IA ’ s, deci si on w as base d o n sub st ant i al evi dence. M oreover, w e c o u ld h a r d ly s a y th a t a r e a s o n a b le f a c tf in d e rw o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e co n trary. I n thi s c a s e , P e t i t i one r s pr oduc e d othe re vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe i rappl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l ; y e t , the B I A de ni e d the appl i c a t i on ba s e d s ol e l y on theWe deny the petition to the ext ent that Petitioner’s challeng e the IJand B IA’s 4 cre dibility

deter minations. 6 IJ ’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on , i . e. , w i tho utany i nd i ca t i on thati tconsi dere d s u c h o th e re v id e n c e . A s w e h a v e r e c e n tly h e ld , h o w e v e r , a n “a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility det erm i nat i on do es no tal l evi at e the IJ ’ s duty t o con si der other e vi dence produ ce d by a n a l i e n appl i c a nt . ” F or gue v. U . S . A tt orne y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1287 ( 11 th C i r . 2005) . S o tha tthe B I A m a y c ons i de rtha te vi de nc e , w e va c a t e i t s de c i s i on a nd re m and t he ca se . P E T I T I O N D I S M I S S E D in p a r t, D E N I E D in p a r t, a n d G R A N T E D in p a r t. 4