United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-1547
FRANTZ GARY JENNER GUILLAUME,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Gibson,* Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Robert M. Warren on brief for petitioner
Catherine Banerjee Rojko, Senior Counsel, Environmental
Enforcement Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Terri J. Scadron,
Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for
respondent.
September 27, 2007
*
Of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellant Frantz Guillaume entered
the United States illegally and applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
After both the Immigration Judge ("IJ") and the Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") rejected his claims, Guillaume
appealed. After careful consideration of the record, we conclude
that we lack jurisdiction over his asylum claim, the CAT claim was
abandoned, and the BIA's rejection of the withholding of removal
claim was supported by substantial evidence.
I.
Appellant, a Haitian citizen, lived with his wife and
children outside of Port-au-Prince and worked as a school teacher
until 2000. He claims that he continued living there through May
2003, and operated a small convenience store out of his home, but
he has no documentation of his residence dated after 2000. In
1999, appellant joined a political party, MOCHRENA, that opposed
the then-governing Lavalas party.1 He served as a local delegate
for MOCHRENA and participated in party meetings.
Appellant claims that he suffered numerous instances of
"persecution" as a result of having switched his party affiliation.
The day after an anti-Aristide demonstration on December 17, 2001,
appellant's house was partially burned. Appellant and his family
1
MOCHRENA is an abbreviation for the Christian National
Movement. The Lavalas party supported the Aristide government that
was in power at the time.
-2-
escaped the fire without injury, and the fire department was able
to quell the flames in time to save two rooms of the house.
Appellant attributes the fire to Aristide sympathizers. On March
22, 2002, appellant participated in another demonstration which led
to violence, where he claims he was beaten and badly injured. A
friend, who participated in the same demonstration, was killed. As
a result of this violence, appellant was afraid to return to his
home and opted instead to spend seven months at a friend's house in
the town of Gonaives.
Upon his return to Port-au-Prince, appellant resumed his
political activities. He alleges that two police officers, with
whom he had been friends prior to joining MOCHRENA, threatened him
repeatedly and told him to leave the country. He says that he took
these threats seriously because he believed the same officers had
participated in the murder of his friend. He does not claim that
either officer ever physically harmed him, but contends that had he
returned home, they would have likely done so.
In May 2003, appellant claims that he received two
warrants instructing him to appear before a judge. Believing that
compliance would likely result in his arrest, he chose to leave
Haiti instead. After returning to his friend's house in Gonaives,
he boarded a boat he believed was headed to Miami. The boat took
him to St. Thomas, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he claims he
stayed for about a month. In St. Thomas, he was introduced to a
-3-
man who assisted him with an application for political asylum. He
then traveled to Boston in July 2003.
Appellant appeared before an IJ in October 2004 and
testified to the facts described above. He provided a number of
documents showing his residence in Haiti prior to 2000, including
his marriage certificate and his children's birth certificates.
However, he presented only one document purporting to show that he
remained in Haiti after 2000. This was a letter from his church
stating that he had attended a church meeting in Haiti on May 31,
2003. A friend also testified that he had spoken to appellant via
telephone in June 2003, and that he could tell that the call
originated in Haiti.
Under the Immigration & Naturalization Act ("INA"), an
asylum applicant is required to "demonstrate[] by clear and
convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1
year after the date of the [applicant's] arrival in the United
States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The only means of avoiding
this requirement is to persuade the Attorney General that
"extraordinary circumstances" or changed conditions justified the
delay. Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The IJ ruled that appellant had
failed to carry his burden of proof as to his arrival date in the
United States. Relatedly, the IJ found that appellant was time-
barred from applying for asylum because he deemed appellant's
testimony regarding his travel to the United States excessively
-4-
vague and inconsistent; he was unpersuaded by the corroborating
witness' testimony; and he found the church letter to be a
fabrication.
Alternatively, the IJ held that appellant had failed to
demonstrate that a reasonable person in his situation would have a
well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Haiti. The IJ
did not credit appellant's claims about past persecution, finding
no evidence that the fire was connected to his political beliefs,
that appellant was injured at the March 2002 rally, or that the two
warrants he received in May 2003 were politically motivated. The
IJ stated that these claims of past persecution were insufficient
to create a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.
Additionally, the IJ found that appellant had not shown
why he could not return to Haiti and live outside of Port-au-
Prince. This finding was based on appellant's testimony that on
two separate occasions, after feeling unsafe at his home in Port-
au-Prince, he stayed with a friend in Gonaives, where he
experienced no threats or violence. The IJ also found that there
was insufficient evidence that any of the past harms suffered by
appellant were caused by his political party affiliation. Finally,
the IJ stated that appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated that
the changes in country conditions in Haiti had been inadequate to
mitigate his fears of persecution. On all of these bases, the IJ
held that "the evidence is lacking to establish a well-founded fear
-5-
of persecution, a clear probability of persecution, [or] that the
authorities would ever detain this respondent and subject him to
torture." Therefore, all three claims for relief were denied.2
On appeal, the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ's
decision, adding only that appellant had not provided evidence of
any exceptional circumstances that would excuse his failure to
timely file an application for asylum.
Where the BIA adopts an IJ's decision, we review the
relevant portion of the IJ's opinion as though it were the decision
of the BIA. Stroni v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 82, 86-87 (1st Cir.
2006). We reverse findings of fact only if they are unsupported by
substantial evidence, meaning that a reasonable fact finder
reviewing the entire record would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. Id. at 87.
II.
The INA bars any court from exercising jurisdiction over
a determination by the Attorney General regarding the satisfaction
2
An asylum applicant must show a "well-founded fear of future
persecution" to be eligible for relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
The standards for withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture ("CAT") are higher: an alien must show
that it is more likely than not that he would suffer persecution or
torture upon returning home. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)
(withholding of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (CAT).
Therefore, if an alien cannot satisfy the standard for asylum
eligibility, he will also be unable to demonstrate eligibility for
these other forms of relief. See, e.g., Palma-Mazariegos v.
Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 2005) (explaining that failure
to satisfy the asylum standard results in failure to satisfy the
withholding of removal standard).
-6-
of the timeliness requirement for asylum applications. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3); see also Stroni, 454 F.3d at 87; Sharari v. Gonzales,
407 F.3d 467, 473 (1st Cir. 2005). The BIA has determined that
appellant's application for asylum was not timely; we have no
jurisdiction to review that decision. We review only appellant's
withholding of removal and CAT claims.
To be eligible for withholding of removal, an alien must
show that his or her "life or freedom would be threatened in [his
or her home country] because of the alien's race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). In order to carry his or her
burden of persuasion, the alien must show either past persecution
(thereby giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of future
persecution) or that it is more likely than not that he will suffer
persecution on account of a protected ground if he returns to his
home country. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also Da Silva v.
Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005).
The BIA's finding that appellant failed to demonstrate
past persecution, giving rise to a presumption of likely future
persecution upon his return to Haiti, easily survives our review
for substantial evidence. Our review of appellant's testimony
before the IJ supports the BIA's finding. Even if credible,
appellant's testimony does not describe persecution, as we have
defined that term. See Sharari, 407 F.3d at 474 ("Persecution does
-7-
not include 'all treatment that our society regards as unfair,
unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.'" (quoting Fatin v.
INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993)). Appellant appears to have
suffered some unpleasant treatment, but he has not shown that he
has been the target of persecution. He had no specific knowledge
of how the fire was started or by whom, nor was there any evidence
(other than its perhaps unfortunate timing) that it was related to
his political activities. He described a series of threats and
taunts by his two former friends, now working as police officers,
but testified that they had never physically harmed him. His
single account of physical harm arose from his participation in a
violent demonstration; appellant provided no evidence of the
severity of his injuries, and his description suggested that he
experienced harassment and the general effects of a violent
encounter between political opponents. Nothing in this record
compels us to conclude that appellant has demonstrated past
persecution.
Additionally, the IJ concluded that appellant had not
explained why he could not return to Haiti and live outside of
Port-au-Prince. He testified to having stayed with a friend in the
town of Gonaives for seven months, and encountered no threats or
violence while living there, leading the IJ to find that his
claims, even if entirely true, were insufficient to merit relief
because they appeared to be localized. "[A]n alien who asserts a
-8-
fear of future persecution by local functionaries ordinarily must
show that those functionaries have more than a localized reach."
Da Silva, 394 F.3d at 7. While testifying before the IJ, appellant
stated that the reason he experienced no threats or violence while
staying in Gonaives was that he had no problems with the police
there. This testimony suggests that his "problems" are with a
localized faction of Lavalas party members and police officers and,
thus, undermines his asserted fear of future persecution in Haiti.
The IJ's conclusion, that appellant failed to demonstrate a
likelihood of future persecution, based on his inability to explain
why he could not live safely in another part of Haiti, is supported
by the record. We find nothing that would compel an opposite
finding.
Finally, appellant requests that we reverse the BIA's
denial of relief under the CAT. In his brief to the BIA, however,
appellant made only a single reference to the CAT in his
conclusion. He cited no legal authority for this claim, did not
describe the legal standard for relief under the CAT, and made no
argument as to why he ought to be given relief on that basis.
Therefore, his CAT claim was waived before the BIA and cannot be
revived in this court. See Olujoke v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 16, 22-23
(1st Cir. 2005) ("The petitioner failed to make any developed
argumentation in support of [her CAT claim] before the BIA. Thus,
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bans any
-9-
attempt on her part to resurrect the issue here."); Da Silva, 394
F.3d at 4 n.3 (noting that where a petitioner did not present a
claim to the BIA when appealing an IJ's decision, the claim is
abandoned and is not susceptible to subsequent judicial review).
The petition for review is denied.
-10-