NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON SAUL GONSALEZ PADILLA, No. 19-72089 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-311-768 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. An immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Nelson Saul Gonsalez Padilla removed for being an “alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Padilla conceded removability but unsuccessfully sought asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Padilla’s appeal. We deny Padilla’s petition for review. 1. Asylum applications must be filed within one year of the alien’s arrival to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Padilla arrived in October 2002 but did not file an application until February 2014. Although an untimely application can be excused if the applicant shows “changed circumstances which materially affect [his] eligibility for asylum,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Padilla has not made that showing here. See Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for substantial evidence).1 The evidence relied on by Padilla simply describes the conditions of Honduras and Guatemala and the generalized violence those countries experience. For example, Padilla references a report of a “spike in homicide rates” in Guatemala. But substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that this does not represent a “material change” in conditions. Nor is the fact that Padilla was placed into removal proceedings a “changed circumstance,” which refers to “circumstances materially affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i) (emphasis added). That Padilla 1 We have jurisdiction over petitions for review of the “BIA’s application of the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception when the historical facts are undisputed.” Al Ramahi, 725 F.3d at 1138 (citing Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007)). Here, the underlying facts are not in dispute. 2 claims he became more acutely aware of the fact that he might be deported after the initiation of removal proceedings does not affect his eligibility for asylum. 2. For withholding of removal, Padilla had to demonstrate that he would more likely than not face persecution on account of his “membership in a particular social group.” Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that neither of Padilla’s proposed social groups—“family members of individuals extorted by the 18th Street gang” in Honduras and “Honduran nationals who relocate to Guatemala and open their own business there”—are “‘sufficiently ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals