NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHENG SHAN ZHOU, No. 15-72462 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-286-399 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 13, 2019** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sheng Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal challenging the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. * 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). 1. The BIA properly concluded that Zhou failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. An asylum applicant must file within one year of his arrival in the United States unless he shows changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying a delay. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). To establish extraordinary circumstances, a petitioner must show (1) that the circumstances were not intentionally created by the alien through his or her own action or inaction, (2) that those circumstances were directly related to the alien's failure to file the application within the 1–year period, and (3) that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Zhou entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa in 2007 and did not file his asylum application until after he was arrested by DHS in 2012. Zhou claims that the filing deadline should be tolled because he was in a “false imprisonment situation” when he worked for Huasheng Company from 2007 to 2008, was threatened by his employer with negative consequences if he sought asylum relief during that same time, did not speak English, did not drive, and, after leaving Huasheng Company, also experienced threats from Chinese police to confiscate his family home if he did not return to work for Huasheng. Zhou, however, does not explain how these circumstances directly prevented him from filing for asylum until 2012, four years after the expiration of his filing period. As such, the agency’s pretermission of Zhou’s asylum application as untimely was 2 proper. 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Zhou’s applications are subject to the REAL ID Act, under which “the IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on any relevant factor that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, can reasonably be said to have a ‘bearing on a petitioner's veracity.’ Conversely, ‘[t]rivial inconsistencies that under the total circumstances have no bearing on a petitioner’s veracity should not form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.’” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Shrestha v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals