NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENIGNO TERRONES ROMERO, No. 20-70183 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-199-101 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 9, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Benigno Terrones Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Terrones Romero’s asylum application as untimely. An asylum application must be filed within one year of the applicant’s last arrival in the United States, or one year from April 1, 1997, whichever is later; otherwise, the applicant must demonstrate that an exception to the deadline applies. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(ii). Terrones Romero last arrived in the United States in January 1993, but he did not file an asylum application until 2013. He claims that his lack of knowledge about his possible eligibility for asylum constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay. But there is no exception to the one-year deadline for ignorance of the law, which is generally “no excuse” under our precedent. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). 2. The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Terrones Romero’s 2011 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is a particularly serious crime that bars him from withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and the CAT. See Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (an applicant convicted of a particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). The agency first determined that DUI is “inherently an extremely dangerous crime,” that can constitute a particularly serious crime. See Bare v. 2 Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 961–62 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that if “‘the elements of the offense are examined and found to potentially bring the offense within the ambit of a particularly serious crime,’ then the other factors [including the individual facts and circumstances of the conviction] are considered”) (quoting Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007)). The agency then relied on appropriate factors and proper evidence in concluding that Terrones Romero’s 2011 DUI offense constitutes a particularly serious crime. See Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals