NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN JUAREZ RODAS, No. 20-73126 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-813-589 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted January 11, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: WALLACE, BOGGS,*** and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. German1 Juarez Rodas appeals from the order of an immigration judge * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1 The Government’s brief repeatedly refers to the Petitioner, who has been in their custody, as “Germin.” His name is German, as nearly every page of the record denying his requests for relief from removal and finding that he had not established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in his home country. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we now affirm. Juarez Rodas, who is a native and citizen of Guatemala, has entered without inspection and been removed from the United States multiple times since 1996. During his most recent removal proceeding, he requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he had been threatened with death the last time he was in Guatemala and was afraid to return home. The asylum officer found Juarez Rodas credible but concluded that he had not established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Juarez Rodas appealed to an immigration judge. Although Department of Homeland Security regulations normally require review in such cases to be conducted within ten days, it was three months before the immigration judge affirmed the adverse reasonable- fear determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(g). Juarez Rodas now argues that the delay in reviewing his claim renders the immigration judge’s order invalid, and that the immigration judge should have granted him CAT protection.2 We disagree on both counts. reflects. 2 Because Juarez Rodas does not argue that he is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal before this court, any such claims are forfeited. 2 1. Construing Juarez Rodas’s claim of delay as an allegation that he was denied due process, we review this challenge to his reasonable-fear proceeding de novo. Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). The relevant DHS regulation states that “[i]n the absence of exceptional circumstances,” review from the asylum officer’s decision “shall be conducted by the immigration judge within 10 days.”3 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(g). The asylum officer referred the case to the immigration judge on July 17, 2020, which started the clock running. Ibid. A month later, counsel for Juarez Rodas requested an update and stated that Juarez Rodas …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals