NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENCESLAO JIMENEZ-ISLAS, No. 16-72698 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-648-676 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Wenceslao Jimenez-Islas challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. * 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). Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without permission in 1999. Petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence on December 19, 2013. Removal proceedings against Petitioner began on December 20, 2013. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection on August 9, 2014. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all relief. The IJ found that Petitioner’s asylum application was barred because he had failed to file within a year of arrival. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Petitioner claimed that he was unaware of asylum until his arrest, but the IJ rejected this claim because, without more, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (requiring changed circumstances materially affecting eligibility for asylum, or extraordinary circumstances directly related to the delay, to qualify for exemption from time bar). The IJ also held that Petitioner’s asylum application failed on the merits because he had not demonstrated past persecution or a nexus to a protected ground. Although Petitioner alleged that he and his family were attacked in Mexico, the IJ noted that Petitioner did not know why they were attacked. The IJ found, citing Petitioner’s testimony, that the attacks on his brothers seem to be a dispute over a motorcycle or attempted robbery and Petitioner may have been attacked because he was mistaken for someone else. The IJ also cited Petitioner’s testimony that his attackers were known to “rob and kill anyone in the community with equal vigor.” 2 The IJ also held that Petitioner failed to show a reasonable fear of persecution in Mexico. Petitioner suffered only a knife cut to his hand when he was attacked in Mexico, and he relocated to a different neighborhood in his hometown following the attack and lived there without incident for three years until he left for the United States. The IJ held that, because Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for asylum, he also “does not meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal.” The IJ denied CAT relief, finding that the past harm to Petitioner did not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals