NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR ELIAS VELASQUEZ- No. 19-70807 CARRILLO, AKA Edgar Elias Carrillo, Agency No. A216-268-591 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Edgar Elias Velasquez-Carrillo petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 1. Velasquez-Carrillo seeks cancellation of removal on the ground that his family relies on him for financial and emotional support. To qualify for cancellation of removal, an alien must establish that “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). “We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement for cancellation of removal.” Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA held that Velasquez-Carrillo did not establish the requisite hardship and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. 2. We review denials of asylum and withholding of removal “for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the BIA’s determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). The BIA’s legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010). Velasquez-Carrillo seeks asylum and argues that his untimely application for such relief should be excused because he did not know he had to file within one year 2 of his arrival. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (establishing one-year deadline for asylum applications). If an applicant fails timely to file his asylum application, he must demonstrate “either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Velasquez-Carrillo’s ignorance of the law did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. See, e.g., Antonio-Martinez v. I.N.S., 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. Velasquez-Carrillo seeks withholding of removal on the ground that his life or freedom would be threatened in his native Guatemala based on his membership in two “particular social group[s].” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Among other requirements, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals