FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 09, 2007 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. 07- 10779 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 97- 185- 474 A L V A R O J U S T O M O J I C A - S A N C H E Z , P e titio n e r , 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

aD e c i s i on of

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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 9, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A lv a r o J u s to M o

jic a - S a n c h e z , ac itiz e n a n dn a tiv e o f C o lo m b ia , w ith h is2

w i f e a nd thr e e c hi l dr e n a s r i de r s , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A pp ea l s’ s ( “ B IA ”) fi nal order of re m ov al af fi rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) de ni a l of a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) , and the B IA ’ s s ub se qu entdeni al of a m ot i on t o rec on si der. B AC KG R OU ND M oj i ca -S anchez a ss ert ed thatw hi l e l i vi ng w i th h i s f am i l y i n B og ot a, C ol um bi a , he pa rt i c i pa t e d i n L i be r a l P a rtya c t i vi t i e s byvol unt a r i l yw orki ng on a c om m i tt e e f

orac a m pa i gn de f

e ndi ng of

hum a n r i ght s . H e be ga n pr ovi di ng l og i st i ca l supp ortand con du ct i ng educat i on t al ks i n 1 99 7. In earl y 199 8, M oj i ca S a n c h e z le a rn e dth a t th e c o m m itte e h a db e e n r e c e iv in g w r itte n a n dte le p h o n ic threa t s. T he ca m pai gn ended i n m i d-19 98 . H ow ever , i n m i d-19 99 , M oj i ca S a nc he z r e c e i ve d athr e a tbyphone , a nd f l e d the c ounty . H e r e turne d hom e , f ound th e si tu at i o n u n ch an g ed , an dd eci d ed t o m o v e h i s fam i l y t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. M oj i c a - S a nc he z e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s on N ove m be r25, 1999 on anoni m m i gr a ntvi s a . O n J une 17, 2003, he w a s s e rve d w i th anot i c e t o appe a rf or ha vi ng ove r s t a y e d hi s vi s a . H i s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um w a s de ni e d bythe a s y l um o f f ic e rh e a r in g h is c a s e , a n dr e f e rr e dto a n im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ( “I J ” ) f o rr e m o v a l. T he IJdet erm i ned thatM oj i ca -S anchez l ac ked the extra ordi naryor changed c i r c um s t a nc e s ne e de d t o c ons i de rhi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on. T he B I A a f f i rm e d, a nd3

de ni e d M oj i c a - S a nc he z ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. DI S C US S I ON I. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der the m er i t s of the un derl yi ng re m ov al order, bu tcan con si der the deni al of the m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on . M oj i ca -S anchez had 3 0 d ay s a fterth e S ep tem b er2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , en try o f th e B IA ’s o rd eraf firm in g th e I J’s de ni a l of a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd C A T r e l i e f , t o f i l e hi s pe t i t i on f

or r e v ie w . See 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) . M oj i c a - S a nc he z f i l e d am ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on w i th the B I A , w hi c h w a s de ni e d on J a nua ry26, 2007. H e di d not f i l e hi s pe t i t i on unt i l F e brua ry22, 2007. T he s t a tut oryt i m e l i m i tf orf i l i ng a pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n a n i m m i gr a t i on c a s e i s m a nda t ory , j ur i s di c t i ona l , a nd not s u s p e n d e do rto lle db yth e f ilin g o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . D akan e v . U . S. A t t ' y. G e n. , 39 9 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 72 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). B ec ause M oj i ca S a nc he z ’ s pe t i t i on i s unt i m e l ya s t o the S e pt e m be r29, 2006 B I A de c i s i on, w e do no thave j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew thatdeci si on . H ow ever , i ti s t i m el y a s t o the B IA order denyi ng the m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , and w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew tha tde c i s i on. II . M o jic a - S a n c h e z a r g u e s th a t th e B I A e rr e d( 1 ) b yr e q u ir in g h im to p r o v e to the I Jtha the f

e l l w i thi n the c ha nge d- c i r c um s t a nc e s e xc e pt i on t o the t i m e l i m i tf or4

fi l i ng as yl um appl i ca t i on s, (2) by f ai l i ng t o revi ew the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on that M oj i ca -S anchez c ou l d rel ocat e w i thi n C ol um bi a, and (3) denyi ng hi m C A T re l i ef w here the C ol um bi an go vernm enthas w i l l ful l y a cc ept ed the R evol ut i on ary A rm ed F or c e s of

C ol um bi a ’ s ( “ F A R C ” ) a c t s of t ortur e . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on to r e c o n s id e rf

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . A s s a’ ad v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 332 F . 3d 1321, 1341 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . “ We r e vi e w the B I A ’ s s t a tut oryi nt e rpr e t a t i on de no vo , but w i l l de f e rt o the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of as t a tut e i f

i ti s r e a s onabl e a nd doe s not contra di ctthe cl ear i nt entof C on gres s. ” J agge rnauth v

. U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 432 F . 3d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . M oj i ca -S anchez c on t ends that , on ce he had p roven t o an asy l um offi ce r that h e f e l l w i th i n th e c h a n g e d - c i r c u ms t a n c e s e x c e p t i o n t o th e n o rma l o n e - y e a rt i me lim it f o rf ilin g a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , h e w a s n o t r e q u ir e dto r e - p r o v e it to th e I J . T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , a n a l i e n m us ts how tha the i s ar e f uge e be c aus e he h a s s u f f e r e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) - ( b) . I n a ddi t i on, a n a s y l um appl i c a ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng thathi s pet i t i on w as t i m el y or f el l i nt o the changed o r e xtra ordi naryci rc um st ance s e xc e pt i ons f

r om 8 U . S . C . § 1158. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 4( a ) ( 2) . A n a s y l um de t e rm i na t i on m a ybe m a de bye i the ra n a s y l um of f i c e r , w ho ha s i ni t i a l j ur i s di c t i on o v e ra n a s y lu m , o ra n I J , u p o n r e f e rr a l f r o m th e a s y lu m o f

f ic e r . See 8 C. F. R. § 208. 2( a ) - ( b) ; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 14( a ) - © ) . O nc e r e f e rr e d t o the I J , the I Jobt a i ns5

e x c lu s iv e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .2 ( b ) . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g M o jic a - S a n c h e z ’s m o tio n to re co n sid erb ec au se n eith erth e I J n o r th e B IA w as b o u n db y th e a sy lu m o ff icer ’s det erm i nat i on thatM oj i ca -S anchez has show n extra ordi naryor changed c i r c um s t a nc e s . I n hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs be f or e the I J , M oj i c a - S a nc he z ha d the b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g a n yg r o u n do n w h ic h h e s h o u ldr e c e iv e r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l. 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .8 ( d ) . I n o r d e rto r e c e iv e a s y lu m , a n a lie n m u s t s h o w b o th atim e ly appl i c a t i on a nd pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . §§ 208. 4( a ) ( 2) , 208. 13( a ) - ( b) . A s s uc h, M o jic a - S a n c h e z h a dth e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h e m e t a ll o f th e s e r e q u ir e m e n ts . W hi l e the F e de r a l R e gul a t i ons i nc l ude s e xc e pt i ons t o thi s ge ne r a l bur de n- of - pr oof rul e, s e e, e .g ., 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b) ( 1) ( i i ) ( pl a c i ng the bur de n of pr oof on the go vernm entt o sho w thatan al i en coul d n otre as on abl y r el ocat e w i thi n h i s c ou ntry of or i gi n, onc e the a l i e n ha s e s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on) , i tc ont a i ns no e xc e pt i on f o ra n is s u e th a t m a yh a v e b e e n p r e v io u s lyc o n s id e r e db ya n a s y lu m o f f ic e r . M oj i c a - S a nc he z poi nt s t o ac ode pr ovi s i on tha tgi ve s the a s y l um of f i c e rthe autho ri ty t o m ake at i m el i ness det erm i nat i on , bu tthe sam e s ub se ct i on al so prov i des the I Ja nd B I A w i th author i tyt o m a ke thi s de t e rm i na t i on, se e 8 C. F. R. § 208. 4( a ) ( 1) . M oj i c a - S a nc he z pr e s e nt s no c om pe l l i ng a r gum e ntf orw hythe as yl um offi ce r’ s det erm i nat i on shou l d b e c on trol l i ng , es peci al l y a ft erre m ov al pr oc e e di ngs ha ve be e n i ni t i a t e d a nd the I Jha s e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe6

a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .2 ( b ) . N e x t, M o

jic a - S a n c h e z a r g u e s th a t th e B I A ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yf a ilin g to r e v i e w th e I J ’ s d e t e rmi n a t i o n th a th e c o u l dh a v e r e l o c a t e dwi th i n Co l o mb i a . To obt a i n w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a n a l i e n m us ts how tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n not th a t h e w ill b e p e r s e c u te du p o n b e in g r e tu rn e dto h is c o u n try . Se pulv e da v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). W here an al i en has show n p as tpers ec ut i on , i ti s pre sum ed thathi s l i fe or fr ee do m w ou l d b e threa t ened i f r e turne d t o hi s na t i ve c ountry , butthe gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthi s pr e s um pt i on by show i ng thatthe al i en coul d rel ocat e t o ano ther partof hi s nat i ve coun tryand that it w o u ldb e r e a s o n ab le f o rh im to d o s o . Me ndoz a v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 327 F . 3d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c itin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) . I n te rn a l r e lo c a tio n is o n l y an i ssu e i f an ap p l i can tfo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al can o th erw i se sh o w p ast p e r s e c u tio n o raf

u tu r e th r e a t to lif

e o rf r e e d o m . See 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( b ) . As M oj i ca -S anchez f

ai l ed t o sho w ei ther pas tpers ec ut i on or a f uture threa t , the B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tdecl i ned t o exam i ne the m oo ti ss ue of i nt ernal r e l oc a t i on. F i nal l y, M oj i ca -S anchez argues thatthe C ol om bi an go vernm enthas wi l l f u l l ya c c e p t e dF AR C ’ s a c t s o f t o rtu r e a n dth a t , a s s u c h , h e i s e n t i t l e dt o C AT re l i ef . C A T prov i des r el i ef

for an al i en w ho can sho w thati ti s m ore l i kel y than no tthathe w i l l be subj ec t ed t o t orture i f r em ov ed. 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c )( 2).7

H ow ever , M oj i ca -S anchez’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on di d n otspec i fyany e rr ors o f f a c t o rla w in th e B I A ’s f in a l o r d e ra f

f irm in g th e I J ’s d e c is io n , b u t m e r e ly r e ite r a te dh is p r io ra r g u m e n ts o n th is p o in t. A m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n s h o u ld s p e c if yth e r e a s o n f

o rth e m o tio n b yp o in tin g to s u c h e rr o r s . See I NA § 24 0(c) (6)© ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(c )( 6)© ); 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1). T hu s, the B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on on thi s i ss ue. II I. A ft ercare ful consi dera t i on of the bri ef s of the part i es , and tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e f

i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e D IS M IS S M oj i ca S a nc he z ’ s pe t i t i on a s i tpe rt a i ns t o the B I A ’ s S e pt e m be r26, 2006, or de r , a nd D E N Y the re m ai nd er . PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.