[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11896 DEC 27, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A088-099-785
BALTAZAR RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 27, 2010)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pro se petitioner Baltazar Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of
Guatemala of Mayan descent, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a); withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).
We dismiss his petition in part and deny it in part.
Ramirez-Ramirez entered the United States in July 2000 without being
admitted or paroled. In 2008, he filed an application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief based upon his race and membership in a particular social
group, namely the Maya Indians. At a removal hearing, Ramirez-Ramirez testified
that in Guatemala in 1999 he had been beaten by four men who told him he should
die and that “all Mayans should disappear from Guatemala.” Ramirez-Ramirez
did not seek medical attention or contact the police after this incident, and he
experienced no other problems from the time of the attack until he fled Guatemala
several months later. Ramirez-Ramirez’s mother, sisters, and grandfather
remained in Guatemala undisturbed. Ramirez-Ramirez explained that he had not
filed his asylum application sooner because he was unaware of the opportunity.
2
The IJ denied relief from removal, finding the asylum application untimely
and that the circumstances did not excuse its tardiness. The IJ further found that
Ramirez-Ramirez had not shown eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT
relief based on the single isolated incident. The IJ noted that Ramirez-Ramirez’s
family remained in Guatemala unharmed.
On appeal to the BIA, Ramirez-Ramirez challenged only the denial of
asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed, finding the asylum
application time-barred and that Ramirez-Ramirez had not shown that
circumstances warranted excusing the untimely application. The BIA further
found that Ramirez-Ramirez failed to show it was more likely than not he would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground if he returned to Guatemala.
Finally, the BIA determined that Ramirez-Ramirez had not shown he was entitled
to CAT relief. This petition for review followed.
Ramirez-Ramirez argues that “extraordinary circumstances” excused the
untimely filing of his asylum application. With respect to his claim for
withholding of removal, Ramirez-Ramirez argues that he was persecuted in
Guatemala based on his race and membership in a particular social group.1
1
Ramirez-Ramirez did not challenge the denial of CAT relief before the BIA; therefore,
he has failed to exhaust the issue and we lack jurisdiction to review it even though the BIA
addressed it sua sponte. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.
3
A. Asylum
We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). An alien may apply for
asylum if he “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application
has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United
States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). An application filed after one year may be
considered if the alien shows “either the existence of changed circumstances
which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary
circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period
specified.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to
review any determination of the Attorney General regarding the timeliness of the
asylum application.” Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11th
Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
Here, the BIA determined that Ramirez-Ramirez’s asylum application was
time-barred and that he had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to
2006). In any event, Ramirez-Ramirez’s argument concerning the BIA’s denial of his request for
CAT relief is limited to a passing reference in his brief. This is inadequate to raise his CAT
claim before this court, and we conclude he has abandoned it. Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of
Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989). Finally, Ramirez-Ramirez argues for the
first time in his petition for review that he established eligibility for withholding of removal
based on a pattern or practice of persecution. Because he did not raise this argument before the
BIA, he has failed to exhaust it and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Amaya-Artunduaga, 463
F.3d at 1250.
4
excuse his untimely filing. We lack jurisdiction to review that determination and
accordingly dismiss Ramirez-Ramirez’s petition for review with respect to his
asylum claim.
B. Withholding of Removal
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the
extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar as the Board adopts the IJ’s reasoning,
we review the IJ’s decision as well.” Id. We review legal determinations de novo,
and review “administrative fact findings under the highly deferential substantial
evidence test.” Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation omitted). We must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotations
omitted). To reverse a factual finding by the BIA, we must find that “the record
compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary
conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.”
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
To be granted withholding of removal, an alien must show that his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
5
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 2004). Persecution is an “extreme concept”
requiring more than a few isolated incidents of verbal intimidation and minor
physical abuse. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1347, 1353 (11th
Cir. 2009). When seeking withholding of removal, an “alien bears the burden of
demonstrating that he more-likely-than-not would be persecuted or tortured upon
his return to the country in question.” Id. (quotation omitted).
The BIA found that Ramirez-Ramirez failed to meet his burden of
demonstrating past persecution. We agree. One isolated incident alone does not
rise to the “extreme concept” of persecution. Furthermore, Ramirez-Ramirez has
not shown that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if he returned
to Guatemala. Ramirez-Ramirez experienced no problems between the time of the
incident and his flight to the United States several months later. Neither he nor his
family received threats after Ramirez-Ramirez left Guatemala, and his family
members who remain in Guatemala have never been harmed. See Ruiz v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006) (considering lack of harm to
alien’s family who remain in the alien’s country). On these facts, we conclude the
record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s order affirming the denial of
withholding of removal.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
6