FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR ALBERTO ALONSO- No. 15-73580 CASTENADA, AKA Oscar Castaneda, AKA Oscar Alonso Castenada, AKA Agency No. A200-626-073 Oscar Alonzo Casteneda, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 9, 2018** Portland, Oregon * 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). Before: FISHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,*** District Judge. Petitioner, Oscar Alberto Alonso-Castenada (“Alonso-Castenada”), seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Alonso-Castenada argues that (1) extraordinary circumstances justify his untimely asylum application; (2) the Board erred in determining that he failed to establish membership in a particular social group; and (3)the Board erred in determining that he does not have a well- founded fear of persecution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition. 1. To be eligible for asylum, an alien must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). An untimely application may be considered if the alien demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Alonso-Castenada argues that his “lack of continued access to legal counsel” constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay in his filing of an application for asylum. However, the alleged interference with Alonso- *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 Castenada’s representation occurred after he filed his application for relief, so it was not “related to the delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Further, Alonso-Castenada’s alleged fear of removal does not excuse his delay. The Board properly pretermitted Alonso-Castenada’s asylum application. 2. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution in the country designated for removal based upon race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984). To establish membership in a particular social group, Alonso-Castenada must demonstrate: (1) “the existence of a cognizable particular social group,” (2) “his membership in that particular social group,” and (3) “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular social group.” Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 2011). To satisfy the particularity requirement, a group must be “recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons,” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013), and must ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals