NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARNOLDO SANTOS, No. 21-70626 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-317-305 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. Arnoldo Santos (“Santos”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the * 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 Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Santos’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss Santos’s asylum claim and otherwise deny the petition for review. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, see Diaz- Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020), and “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d. at 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019). 1. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of Santos’s asylum application as untimely filed. The Immigration and Nationality Act strips courts of jurisdiction to review agency determinations related to exceptions to the asylum-application filing deadline, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), except over “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2022). “Our jurisdiction to review mixed questions of law and fact is limited to instances where the underlying facts are undisputed.” Gasparyan v. 2 Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After considering Santos’s testimony and the information in the record, the IJ found that Santos’s ignorance of the law, rather than any issues related to his mental health, materially affected his ability to file timely an asylum application. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s factual finding that that Santos had failed to show extraordinary circumstances for missing the one-year deadline to file a timely asylum application. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination “that [the applicant’s] filing delay was caused by her ignorance of the one-year filing …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals