NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELISEO AYALA-REZA, No. 22-609 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-660-163 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 9, 2023 Seattle, Washington Before: BEA and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and OHTA,** District Judge. Partial Dissent by Judge OHTA. 1. Eliseo Ayala-Reza (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jinsook Ohta, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 2. The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, so we do not recite them here. Given the BIA adopted the IJ’s factual findings and upheld its decision, we review both decisions. Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013). All factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). All legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Martinez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 907, 921 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction to review an IJ’s determination whether the alien can file an untimely asylum application because he has satisfied the changed circumstances exception when the facts are undisputed. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We review a changed circumstances determination for substantial evidence. Id. 3. Petitioner first argues that the BIA erred when it concluded that he is statutorily ineligible for asylum because he failed to file an asylum application within the one-year statutory deadline and has not shown changed circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. The BIA did not err. Petitioner acknowledges that the ongoing and consistent threats his family received from the Reza family while he has lived in the United States had existed prior to his last entry into the United States in 2008. “New evidence confirming what [the alien] already knew . . . does not constitute changed circumstances.” Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, Petitioner’s contention that the sexual assault of his daughter by an unknown assailant supports a finding of changed circumstances lacks merit. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s factual finding that there was “no connection” 2 22-609 between the sexual assault of Petitioner’s daughter and his claim for asylum arising from the threats from Juan Reza’s family.1 We lack jurisdiction to review this factual finding because Congress has stripped us of jurisdiction over factual determinations that support the agency’s changed circumstances analysis. Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1133–34 (9th Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals