[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 19, 2009
No. 08-12808 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A98-701-767
JAVIER TOMAS-SEBASTIAN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(March 19, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Javier Tomas-Sebastian (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the Board
of Immigration Affairs’ (“BIA”) final removal order, which denied his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Petitioner argues that he established eligibility for asylum, even though he
filed his asylum application more than a year after his last arrival in the United
States. He contends that he was persecuted by guerillas and is afraid to return to
Guatemala. He claims that his failure to file a timely asylum application when he
entered the United States was due to exceptional circumstances: he was a ten-year
old, unaccompanied minor, therefore he was under a legal disability at the time.
He also claims that his failure to file a timely asylum application within a year of
becoming an adult was due to exceptional circumstances: his lack of education and
money.
The BIA denied Petitioner’s appeal after concluding that he had not
challenged the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding that Petitioner’s application was
untimely and that he did not show extraordinary or changed circumstances to
excuse his failure to meet the filing deadline. The BIA further noted that it agreed
with the IJ’s alternative finding that Petitioner had failed to establish a clear
2
probability that he will suffer persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected
ground.
We review subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 (2007). We are “obligated to inquire into subject-
matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Cadet v. Bulger, 377
F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). We lack
jurisdiction to consider claims raised in a petition unless the petitioner has
exhausted his administrative remedies for that claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We
decline to review claims that a petitioner failed to present to the BIA, even if the
BIA addressed the underlying issues sua sponte. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006).
We lack jurisdiction to consider this petition because Petitioner did not
exhaust his administrative remedies on his claim that his untimely application
should have been accepted: he did not challenge these findings before the BIA; he
merely asked that the BIA change the IJ’s decision and grant him asylum. In the
alternative, even if Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to this claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument on this ground:
that the BIA erred in determining that a petitioner has failed to establish changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse an untimely filing. See Sanchez Jimenez v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 (2007). Accordingly, we dismiss the
3
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
4