Filed: Dec. 12, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: adverse decision by an immigration judge (IJ). 2004) (explaining that where the jurisdictional question is, difficult, the court of appeals may assume that it has statutory, jurisdiction and decide the petition on the merits in favor of the, party in whose favor want of jurisdiction would operate).
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-1609
PATRIK THOMAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Torruella, Selya and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Patrik Thomas on brief pro se.
Siu P. Wong, Trial Attorney, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation
Counsel, and Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General.
December 12, 2006
Per Curiam. Patrik Thomas seeks review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an
adverse decision by an immigration judge (IJ). The IJ determined
that Thomas was ineligible to apply for asylum, and she denied his
application for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the following reasons, we
deny the petition for review.
1. The BIA agreed with the IJ's determination that
Thomas was ineligible for asylum because his application was late
and no statutory exception applied, and we lack jurisdiction to
review that determination. Hayek v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 501, 506-07
(1st Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
2. The BIA agreed with the IJ's determination that
Thomas was not entitled to either withholding of removal or
protection under the CAT.1 Substantial evidence of record supports
that determination. The IJ's decision recites the facts, and so we
do not repeat them here. We note only that Thomas failed to show
that any governmental action or inaction contributed to the adverse
events he experienced in Jakarta on account of his religion, and
that his family still lives there, practicing their faith without
1
We bypass the question whether we have jurisdiction to
consider the CAT issue, which the BIA addressed despite the lack of
briefing by Thomas. Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173, 180 (2d
Cir. 2004) (explaining that where the jurisdictional question is
difficult, the court of appeals may assume that it has statutory
jurisdiction and decide the petition on the merits in favor of the
party in whose favor want of jurisdiction would operate).
-2-
harm. Our case law confirms that the denial of relief was proper.
E.g., Nikijuluw v. Gonzalez, 427 F.3d 115, 121 (1st Cir. 2005)
(denying petition for review by an Indonesian Christian because he
had suffered only "isolated acts of private discrimination" and his
family continued to live safely in Indonesia).
3. Thomas offers new facts and materials to support his
petition, but our review is limited to information in the appellate
record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
The petition for review is denied.
-3-
