NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO ZACAPALA-ROJAS, No. 15-73395 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-054-195 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District Judge. Petitioner Robert Zacapala-Rojas (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an * 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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review “constitutional claims and questions of law de novo and review factual findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard, treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)); see also Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), questions of timeliness are ordinarily outside our jurisdiction. However, we retain jurisdiction to review the extraordinary circumstances and changed circumstances exceptions. Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013); Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984– 85 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner’s lack of education and sophistication did not excuse his untimely asylum application. To excuse his untimely asylum application, Petitioner had to show either “changed circumstances” materially affecting his eligibility for asylum1 or “extraordinary circumstances” excusing his failure to file within the one-year deadline. See 8 1 Petitioner did not raise this as a ground in his petition, and issues not raised in the opening brief are considered waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). A lack of education does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance to excuse such a delay. See Antonio–Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating the general rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner suffered past persecution in Mexico or that he has a well- founded fear of suffering future persecution if returned to Mexico.2 Petitioner did not offer evidence to show that he was the victim of any violence or that he was subject to any type of activity that rises to the level of persecution. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals