Alexis Macias Torres v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15098 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-265-983 ALEXIS MACIAS TORRES, MARIA REMEDIOS TORRES MAGANA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. __________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________ (July 16, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 2 of 6 The petitioners, Maria Remedios Torres Magana and Alexias Marcia Torres, are mother and son. They are natives of Mexico. On July 29, 2014, the two arrived at Laredo, Texas and applied for admission to enter the United States. Neither of them had a valid entry document at the time they sought admission and were therefore inadmissible. 1 They were accordingly ruled to be removable from the United States. In an attempt to avoid removal, the petitioners sought relief from removal through asylum, 2 withholding of removal, 3 and protection under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). 4 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed that denial. The petitioners have appealed the BIA’s decision. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) permits an alien to apply for asylum “within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); INA § 208(a)(2)(B). The petitioners, however, waited almost two years to seek asylum. The IJ and BIA therefore refused to consider the petition for asylum as untimely. 5 The INA strips us of jurisdiction to review a 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). 2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); INA § 208(a)(1). 3 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INA § 241(b)(3)(A). 4 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). 5 In so ruling, they determined that the petitioners failed to qualify for one of the two exceptions to the time bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); INA § 208(a)(2)(D) (providing that an alien may file an untimely application for asylum “if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of 2 Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 3 of 6 determination of the Attorney General that an asylum claim is time barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); INA § 208(a)(3).6 As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the petitioners filed an untimely asylum petition. We turn to the remaining issue7 in the petitioners’ brief on appeal: withholding of removal. 8 We review the IJ’s and BIA’s legal conclusions de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). The IJ’s factual findings bind us unless the record shows that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INA § 242(b)(4)(B). To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must show that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, the Attorney General either the existence of changed ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals