Opinion ID: 174348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Jurisdiction over Asylum Claim

Text: Under 8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(3), this court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely asylum claim unless the applicant shows a legal or constitutional defect in the agency's timeliness decision. Makieh v. Holder, 572 F.3d 37, 42 (1st Cir. 2009); El-Labaki v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2008). Ghouri has identified no such defect, so we lack jurisdiction to hear this claim. The only purported legal error Ghouri offers is based on his incorrect assertion that the IJ and BIA wholly ignored his 2 Ghouri's argument that the IJ and BIA's carefully reasoned decisions are not clear enough to permit review is utterly meritless. -6- claimed exceptional circumstance that he suffered from a mental disability, depression. Not so. The IJ expressly addressed Ghouri's claimed mental disability. The BIA expressly agreed with the IJ's finding that the physician letters were speculative, and that Ghouri had failed to establish extraordinary circumstances.3 We cannot review these assessments. B. Withholding of Removal and Protection under the CAT When the BIA adopts the IJ's opinion and discusses some of the bases for the IJ's decision, we review both the IJ's and BIA's opinions. Makieh, 572 F.3d at 41 (quoting Scatambuli v. Holder, 558 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review factual findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard. Id. We reverse only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. Id. We bypass the usual recitations about the legal requirements the petitioner must meet and get to the merits. The conclusion that any harm Ghouri suffered did not rise to the level of persecution is well-supported in the record. Ghouri's brief identifies three ways he suffered persecution at the hands of his 3 Ghouri makes much of the BIA's apparent misstatement that Ghouri first sought medical attention for a heart condition, rather than his depression, in 2006. But this claim of factual discrepancy does not constitute a claim of legal error. See Ayeni v. Holder, No. 09-1508, 2010 WL 3220630, at  (1st Cir. Aug. 17, 2010). -7- brother-in-law, Wajid: Wajid threatened Ghouri and his family, injured or attempted to injure Ghouri in three incidents, and beat Ghouri's wife. This persecution came solely from Wajid. It is clear that Wajid's family restrained Wajid when he acted in their presence. Further, Wajid never attempted to harm Ghouri in his home, he physically confronted Ghouri only rarely and only at large gatherings, and any harm he inflicted was minimal. Ghouri claimed that Wajid punched him once in the face, threw rocks and glass at him once, and once struck at but did not injure him.4 As to Saira, the IJ found that Wajid slapped Saira in the face and head at least once, though Ghouri claimed in his asylum application that Wajid hit her on several occasions. He never claimed that she was seriously injured. This offensive treatment by Ghouri's brother-in-law simply was not pervasive or severe enough to compel the BIA to find that it amounted to persecution, even without comparing these facts to other cases in which we have upheld BIA findings of no persecution. And if a comparison is made, the conclusion becomes even more obvious. See, e.g., Ravix v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 42, 44-46 (1st Cir. 2009); Limani v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2008); Susanto v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 57, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2006). 4 Ghouri vehemently disputes the IJ's conclusion that, though Ghouri mentioned three incidents in his asylum application, his hearing testimony discussed only one incident. The IJ's conclusion was supportable; further, even if there were three encounters, that would not compel a finding of persecution. -8- Ghouri argues the BIA's finding that he would not face future persecution fails because the BIA erroneously said he had lived close to Wajid without harm for five years, when, as the IJ correctly found, it was for three years. This discrepancy does not undermine the core reasoning of either the BIA or the IJ and certainly does not compel a different conclusion. It follows that Ghouri's claims for CAT relief also fail. See Makalo v. Holder, No. 09-2034, 2010 WL 2802642, at  (1st Cir. July 19, 2010); Faye v. Holder, 580 F.3d 37, 42 (1st Cir. 2009). The petition for review is denied as to the withholding of removal and CAT claims, and dismissed as to the asylum claim. -9-