Melanie Margarita Rodriguez v. Us Attorney General , 447 F. App'x 74 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-11006
NOVEMBER 16, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A099-551-725
MELANIE MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 16, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Melanie Margarita Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order affirming the
denial of her 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 or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”). Rodriguez claims that she will be persecuted if she returns to Venezuela
on account of her employment with an organization, Centro Interamericano de
Gerencia Politica, whose mission is to promote democracy throughout Latin
America, including in Venezuela, and because she recently started a personal blog
that is opposed to the Venezuelan government.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA
expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir.
2007). In that case, we review the IJ’s decision as well. Id. Here, the BIA did not
expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, and, therefore, we review only the BIA’s
decision. See id.As an initial matter, Rodriguez has not challenged the BIA’s adverse-
credibility determination or its conclusion that Rodriguez was ineligible for
withholding under CAT. Because she failed to raise those issues in her petition
before us, we deem them abandoned and need not further address them. See Singh
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2009). Additionally, we
2
lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s determination that her asylum application
was untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Fahim v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 278 F.3d
1216, 1217 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to
review the Attorney General’s decision regarding the timeliness of an asylum
application). Thus, the only issue before us is the BIA’s alternative determination
that, notwithstanding her lack of credibility, Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that
it is more likely than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in Venezuela
on account of her political activities, therefore denying her request for withholding
of removal.1
Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we see no reversible error
in the BIA’s decision that Rodriguez failed to meet her burden of proof for
withholding of removal. The BIA did not err when it upheld the Immigration
Judge’s decision to give little weight to the illegible, uncertified translations of
web pages that Rodriguez submitted as the regulations provide that foreign
language documents must be legible and accompanied by a certification from the
1
To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, the applicant must show that if
returned to her country, her “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of [her]
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA §
241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The petitioner must demonstrate that it is more likely
than not that she will be persecuted or tortured upon removal to her country. Tan v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006).
3
translator as to competency and accuracy. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.33. Moreover,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that no one in Venezuela was
aware of Rodriguez’s political activities or would seek to harm her.2
PETITION DENIED.
2
To the extent that Rodriguez faults her prior trial counsel for any deficiencies in her
immigration court proceedings and attempts to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue as it has not been administratively exhausted. See
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1249-51 (11th Cir. 2006).
4