The 1st Cir held that conclusional statements, without details, that the Petitioner tried to locate his former lawyer were insufficient to satisfy Lozada - also noting that he didn't detail his arrangements with former counsel, or send the ARDC notice to the right place. Rejects argument that it was "substantial compliance," finding that it wasn't substantial, and that argument wasn't presented to BIA. No equitable tolling, since no due diligence.
The 1st Cir found a due process claim that the IJ failed to make an individualized analysis re the one-year asylum filing deadline "frivolous." On withholding claim, refused to disturb IJ's finding that beating by Pakistani police was an isolated incident that did not rise to level of past persecution; and found that instability in Pakistan was not enough (absent an individualized threat or a pattern of persecution) to meet future fear threshhold.
Petitioner argued that federal law only makes possession with intent a misdemeanor if it's a small amount of marijuana and it's being given away. The 1st Cir found that the federal scheme "does not create a stand-alone misdemeanor offense. Rather, it is best understood as a mitigating sentencing provision" - and defendant bears burden of proof. Therefore, state conviction for possession with intent will generally constitute an aggravated felony. But 1st Cir suggests that an alien may be able to produce evidence in removal proceedings to show it was a small amt and for a gift - but merely suggests to the Board that it may want to consider that question.
Contra: Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir. 2003).
The 1st Cir - as required by prior decisions in Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007) and Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2006) - upheld the Board's analysis in Brieva and Blake. The CtApp also said that it found the additional arguments, based on the 2d Cir's decision in Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007), "unconvincing."
The 1st Cir found that Indonesian Christian family had not suffered past persecution; discrimination is not persecution. Re future persecution, IJ did not find that Govt was involved in the persecution, so no burden on DHS to prove that he could relocate within Indonesia
First Circuit 
