[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 31, 2008
No. 08-12213 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A97-947-677
AMADOU BAILLO BARRY,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 31, 2008)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Amadou Barry petitions for review of the denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals and the
immigration judge denied Barry’s petition for asylum as untimely and found him
not credible. We dismiss in part and deny in part Barry’s petition.
Barry argues that the Board and immigration judge violated his due process
rights by ruling that Barry “failed to prove his date of entry,” but Barry’s argument
challenges the finding that his application for asylum was untimely, which we lack
jurisdiction to review. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005). Barry also argues that the immigration judge
erred by failing to find a change in circumstances, but we lack jurisdiction to
review a finding about a change in circumstances. See Chacon-Botero, 427 F.3d at
957. Even if we had jurisdiction to consider the issue, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(d)
(allowing judicial review only of “constitutional claims or questions of law”),
Barry did not present that argument to the Board. “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse
or exception, ‘we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised
before the [Board].’” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250
(11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss Barry’s petition for review of the denial of his
application for asylum.
2
Barry also contests the denial of his application for withholding of removal,
but substantial evidence supports the finding that Barry was not credible. See Al
Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2001). Barry entered the
United States with a fraudulent passport and provided inconsistent information to
immigration officials about the date of his entry. Although Barry wrote in his
application that he did not know the location of his father and he had been
persecuted for his father’s political activities, Barry testified at the asylum hearing
that his father had died after Guinean officials tortured him and that government
officials had pursued Barry because he organized political rallies. Barry failed to
prove his nationality and gave conflicting testimony about the age that he
commenced his political activities. Barry also provided an incredible account of a
brief interview in English after he presented a Dutch passport to Dutch airport
officials. Barry offers no explanation for these inconsistencies that would compel
a reasonable fact finder to reverse the adverse credibility finding and conclude that
he established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.
We DISMISS Barry’s petition for review of the denial of asylum and
DENY his petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3