NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 22-1806 ______________ SARA ESTER MENDIZABAL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A095-137-536) Immigration Judge: Dinesh C. Verma _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 9, 2023 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 10, 2023) ______________ OPINION ∗ ______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Sara Mendizabal is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Starting around 1995, her then- stepfather began threatening her family, demanding money that they allegedly owed him. ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. She was also harassed by gangs. So in 1999, at age fourteen, she came to the United States illegally. She has not seen her ex-stepfather since then and has not heard from him in about seven years; she doubts that he is still alive. The U.S. government gave Mendizabal temporary protected status in 2004. But after she was convicted of food-stamp fraud as well as shoplifting, it revoked that status in March 2014. It then began removal proceedings. In 2017, Mendizabal conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all claims for relief. Her asylum claim, he held, was untimely and not excused by extraordinary circumstances. Her withholding claim also failed because she had not suffered past persecution and had not shown that her fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. And her Convention claim failed because she had not been tortured and was not more likely than not to be tortured if she returned. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and dismissed her appeal. Mendizabal now petitions for review. We review not only the Board’s decision but also the parts of the immigration judge’s decision to which the Board deferred. Chavarria v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to review some factual findings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(C). Others we review for substantial evidence, deferring to them “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to” reject them. § 1252(b)(4). We review issues of law and constitutional claims de novo. Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515 (3d Cir. 2017). 2 Mendizabal did not seek asylum until November 2017. That was well beyond the one- year deadline for seeking asylum and more than three years after the government revoked her temporary protected status, which she did not appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). She claims that “extraordinary circumstances” excused her delay. § 1158(a)(2)(D). But the immigration judge and Board rejected that excuse on the facts. And we need not decide whether Mendizabal’s argument presents a legal or factual question because her argument lacks merit regardless. See Sukwanputra v. Gonzalez, 434 F.3d 627, 634–35 (3d Cir. 2006). Although the benefits of temporary protected status can extend during the appeal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals