NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BYRON ENRIQUE DIAZ ESCOBAR, No. 14-72243 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-715-907 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Byron Diaz-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final removal order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (CAT). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in part, deny the petition in part, and remand. 1. Diaz-Escobar argues that his asylum application was timely because he filed the application within a “reasonable period” after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declined to renew his work authorization in 2006. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). A potential asylee may apply outside the one-year deadline for asylum applications if the delay is justified by “either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The denial of work authorization does not count as a changed circumstance under § 1158. Expiration of an applicant’s legal immigration status may count as a changed circumstance under § 1158, but work authorization is not a form of legal status. See Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that work authorization does not alter an asylum applicant’s legal status). However, the government’s grant and subsequent denial of work authorization in this case may count as an extraordinary circumstance.1 Diaz- 1 The government contends that Diaz-Escobar waived his claim of extraordinary circumstances by failing to adequately argue the issue in his opening brief. In fact, Diaz-Escobar’s brief argues that the government’s denial of his work authorization 2 Escobar received work authorization from June 24, 2000, until August 21, 2006, based on his father’s pending asylum application. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.7(a)(1), 274a.12(c)(8)(i). For as long as DHS continued to renew his authorization, Diaz- Escobar reasonably believed that he was still covered by his father’s application and therefore that he did not need to file an application of his own. We remand so the BIA can consider whether Diaz-Escobar applied within a reasonable period after learning that DHS had declined to renew his work authorization. 2. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must prove that “his or her life or freedom would be threatened in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals