FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 16 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 12874 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 95- 537- 445 & A 95- 537- 474 F R A N C I S C O J . Q U E V E D O , A U R A M . G U E V A R A , M A R I A A . Q U E V E D O , 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.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Petitioner’s wife, Aura Ma rce lla Gueva

ra, a nd their minor daughter, Maria Alejandra 1 Queve do, arederivative applicants, re lying on Petitioner’ s applications. For convenience, w e ref er to all three a

pplicants as Petitioner. Pe tition er a

ba ndon e d his c laim f

or CA T re lie f b y

failingto raiseany

argument o n this 2 issuein his p e tition

fo r re view. Sepulve da

v. U. S. Att’ y

Gen. , 4 01 F .3 d 1 22 6, 12 28 n. 2 ( 11 th Cir. 2005). 2 P e titio n e rF r a n c is c o J . Q u e v e d o is an a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C o lo m b ia , S . A . A n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ) de ni e d hi s appl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um unde rthe I m m i g r a t i o n a n dNa t i o n a l i ty Ac t( “ I NA ” ) , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e Un i t e d Na t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ C AT ” ) , I NA § 208, 241, 8 U . S . C . § 1158, 1231, 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . T he I J di d s o on the 1 gr ounds tha t( 1) P e t i t i one r ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um w a s unt i m e l y , a nd ( 2) al t ern at i v el y, P et i t i o n er’ s t est i m o n y w as n o tcred i b l e an d fai l ed t o est ab l i sh e lig ib ility f

o ra s y lu m a n d th e r e f

o r e w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l a n d C A T p r o te c tio n . T h e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) a f f irm e d th e I J ’s o r d e r , c o n c u rr in g in f u ll w ith th e I J ’s d e c is io n . P et i t i on erno w se eks our re vi ew of the B IA ’ s dec i si on , cont endi ng that 2 subst ant i al evi dence does notsupp ortthe IJ ’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty f i nd i ng or that P et i t i on erfa i l ed t o d em on stra t e e l i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al thr ough pa s tpe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof apr ot e c t e d gr ound. I n r e s pons e , the A tt orne y G e ne r a l s ubm i t s tha tw e s houl d not re vi ew P et i t i on er ’ s a sy l um appl i ca t i on because i ti s t i m e- barr ed, and that3

s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the de c i s i ons de ny i ng P e t i t i one rw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . I n thi s c a s e , the B I A s pe c i f i c a l l y c onc urr e d a nd a gr e e d w i th the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i th ve ry f e w c om m e nt s ; he nc e , w e r e vi e w both the B IA ’ s an d th e IJ’ s d eci si o n s. I. A n a l i e n m a y notappl y f ora s y l um unl e s s he “ 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 the 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 th e a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1158( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . H ow e ve r , al a t e “ appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um of

a n a l i e n m a y 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 e i the rthe 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 c a nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um ore xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the d e l a y i n f

i l i n g a n ap p l i c a t i o n wi th i n th e p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d . . . . ” I NA § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e B I A ’s a u th o r ity to c ons i de ra n unt i m e l y a s y l um appl i c a t i on i n c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h the appl i c a nt m e e t s one of

the e xc e pt i ons t o the one - y e a rde a dl i ne , “ [ n] o 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 rm i na t i on of the A tt orne y G e ne r a l unde r[ s e c t i on4

1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ].” I N A § 2 0 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) . S e c tio n 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) d iv e s ts us of j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a det erm i nat i on thatan as yl um appl i ca ntfi l ed an un t i m el y app l i ca t i on and fai l ed t o est abl i sh changed o r e xtra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s t o e xc us e a n unt i m e l y f i l i ng. M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .2 0 0 3 ) . I n tw o r e c e ntde c i s i ons , w e a ddr e s s e d the appl i c a t i on of pr ovi s i ons i n the R E A L I D A c t o f

2 0 0 5 ( “R E A L I D A c t” ) , P u b .L . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 3 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , to j udi c i a l r e vi e w . W e de t e rm i ne d tha tthe R E A L I D A c tpe rm i tt e d j udi c i a l r e vi e w of a l l c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i ons a nd i s s ue s of l a w a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe j ur i s di c t i on r e s truc tur i ng pr ovi s i ons of the A c ta r e r e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c abl e t o a l l pe ndi ng pr oc e e di ngs . B a l ogun v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , N os . 04- 12507, 04- 14496, m a n. op. a t7- 9 (11 th C i r. S ept . 26 , 20 05 ). A l so, w e det erm i ned that , as the t i m el i ness of an ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m i s n o tac o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m o raq u e s t i o n o f l a w, th e R E AL I D A c tdoe s nota f

f e c tourj ur i s di c t i on ove rs uc h i s s ue s . B ot e r o v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. N o . 0 4 - 1 6 4 2 2 , m a n . o p . a t 6 - 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . O c t. 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . P ursuantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (3), w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the deni al o f P e titio n e r ’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n a s tim e - b a rr e d . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is m is s th is pa r tof the pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w . W e turn the n t o P e t i t i one r ’ s c a s e f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. II .5

P e t i t i one r ’ s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l w a s de ni e d f

or es se n ti ally th e s am e r ea so n th at th e I J, in an altern ativ e h o ld in g , d en ied P etit io n er ’s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um . T he I J s t a t e d c l e a r l y tha ts he ha d c onc e rns about P e t i t i one r ’ s c r e di bi l i ty . S he pr ovi de d s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons f

orr e j e c t i ng P e t i t i one r ’ s t e s t i m ony a s notc r e di bl e , poi nt i ng outthe i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n the t e s t i m ony , P e t i t i one r ’ s I - 589 appl i c a t i on a nd s ubm i tt e d doc um e nt s . W e c onc l ude tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f he c a n s how thathi s l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened i n thatcoun tryon ac coun tof ra ce , r e lig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e r s h ip in ap 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 . IN A § 2 41 (b)( 3)(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ). T he bu rden of proo f i s on the al i en to s h o w e lig ib ility f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, th r o u g h s p e c if ic a n d c r e d ib le e vi de nc e of

( 1) apa s tthr e a tt o l i f

e orf r e e dom thr ough pr oof

of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n ( th e f

iv e “c o v e r e d g r o u n d s ” f o ra s y lu m ) o r( 2 ) af

u tu r e th r e a t to lif e o rf r e e d o m if

it is m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t th a t o n e o f th e c o v e r e d g r o u n d s w ill cau se fu tu re p ersecu t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (a), (b )(1 ), (2 ). A sh o w i n g o f p ast pers ec ut i on cr ea t es a pre sum pt i on of a f uture threa t , w hi ch the A tt orney G ener al m a y r e butby s how i ng ac ha nge i n c ountry c ondi t i ons orby s how i ng tha tthe ap p lic a n t c a n r e a s o n ab ly r e lo c a te w ith in th e c o u n try . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i) .6

B e c a us e the “ m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- not ” s t a nda r d f orm a nda t ory w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l i s m or e s tr i nge nttha tthe “ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” s t a nda r d f

orthe di sc re t i on ary gra ntof as yl um , “ i f a n app l i ca nti s unabl e t o m ee tthe w el l -f ou nd ed f e a rs t a nda r d, he i s ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude d f r om qua l i f

y i ng f ore i the ra s y l um or w i thhol di ng of

[ r e m ova l ] . ” S e pul ve dav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1232- 33 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . A s not e d above , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s c onc l us i on, w hi c h the B I A a f f i rm e d, tha tP e t i t i one rf

a i l e d t o m a ke outac r e di bl e c a s e f ora s y l um , i . e . , he fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e e i ther pas tpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof a ny of the c ove r e d gr ounds . F orthi s r e a s on, he w a s not e l i gi bl e unde rthe m or e s tr i nge nts t a nda r d f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . T he evi dence s ho w s the fol l ow i ng al l eged act s of per se cut i on : (1) P et i t i on er , hi s f ather, a nd hi s f a m i l y r e c e i ve d thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s f oraf a i l ur e t o pa y m one y t o the F A R C , and (2) a vehi cl e a nd a boatow ned b y the E C O F ou nd at i on w er e des troye d b y g u e r illao r g a n iz a tio n s . H o w e v e r , P e titio n e rn e v e rf ile d ap o lic e r e p o r t, a n d h is fa ther onl y di d so fou r y ea rs af t erthe fi rs tthrea t s occ urre d. P et i t i on erconceded thathe w as never physi ca l l y harm ed by anyone i n C ol om bi a a nd thathe never had a n y d i r e c tc o n t a c tw i th ame mb e ro f th e FA RC o rth e N a t i o n a l Li b e r a t i o n A rmy ( “ E L N ” ) . P e r s e c ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , a nd the e vi de nc e i n thi s c a s e doe s not com pel the concl usi on thatthese i sol at ed, di st antac t s of har as sm entconst i tut ed7

p as t p er se cu ti o n . S ee S ep u lv ed a, 4 0 1 F .3 dat 1 2 3 1 . T h e I J n o ted th at P etit io n er ’s s ubj e c t i ve f

e a rw a s unde rm i ne d by hi s de l a y i n f i l i ng f ora s y l um . F ur the rm or e , the e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t m e m b e r s o f P e titio n e r ’s f

a m ily c o n tin u e to r e s id e in C o lo m b ia , a n d th a t th e E C O F o u n d a tio n c o n tin u e s to o p e r a te in C o lo m b ia . A c c o r d in g ly , P e titio n e rd id n o t s a tis f y h is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f to e s tab lis h e lig ib ility . D IS M IS S E D i n p art, D E N IE D i n p art.