NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE RAUL AVELAR RAMOS, No. 21-1432 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-135-450 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 29, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Raul Avelar Ramos seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * 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). Petitioner, a citizen of both El Salvador and Guatemala, illegally entered the United States in 2000. He obtained temporary protected status in 2002 but was denied renewal in 2003 due to his DUI convictions. In March 2008, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings by serving Petitioner with a notice to appear. In March 2011, almost eleven years after his arrival, Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The IJ denied relief and ordered Petitioner’s removal because he (1) did not qualify for an exception to the timeliness requirement for asylum applications; (2) had not established past or probable future persecution on the basis of a protected ground; and (3) had not established it was more likely than not he would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence if returned to El Salvador or Guatemala. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s order. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). “Whether a group constitutes a ‘particular social group’ … is a question of law [this court] review[s] de novo.” Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). But whether an applicant has shown that his persecutor was or would be motivated by a protected ground—i.e., whether the “nexus” requirement has been satisfied—is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this deferential standard, the agency’s factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 2 21-1432 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). And to reverse the agency’s conclusion under substantial evidence review, we “must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992).1 First, Petitioner has provided no evidence of extraordinary circumstances to excuse the decade-long delay in filing his asylum application. Although “extraordinary circumstances” may excuse a delay past the one-year filing deadline, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals