NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO ELIEZER PALAFOX No. 14-73238 PADILLA, AKA Hector Lopez, Agency No. A200-607-476 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,** District Judge. Francisco Eliezer Palafox Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and remand. 1. ASYLUM CLAIM Whether or not Palafox addressed every reason for the Board’s finding that his asylum application was untimely, Palafox’s opening brief clearly challenged that finding and thus preserved the issue for appeal. See Brown v. Rawson-Neal Psych. Hosp., 840 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We . . . reasonably require parties to preserve valid issues in order to conserve judicial resources and to assist our review.”). The BIA properly concluded that Palafox’s application for asylum was time- barred. Although a delay of six months after the expiration of lawful nonimmigrant status is “presumptively reasonable,” Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2011), a nine- to eleven-year delay is not. Ignorance of asylum law is not a special consideration excusing Palafox’s delay in filing. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.”). Therefore, Palafox’s petition for review challenging the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum is denied. 2. WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL AND CAT PROTECTION CLAIMS With respect to Palafox’s petition for review of his claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, we grant and remand to the BIA to consider 2 Palafox’s eligibility in light of our intervening decisions in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), and Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Neither the BIA nor the parties had the benefit of these decisions. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. PETITION DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED. 3 14-73238 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Francisco Palafox Padilla v. Jefferson Sessions 28 February 2018 Agency Unpublished c522eec8b788b167b2b92ed158c72aa0d4774129
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals