NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENJAMIN DE JESUS CAMPOS No. 18-72932 ESCOBAR, AKA Rene Campos, Agency No. A094-320-518 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Benjamin De Jesus Campos Escobar (“Campos”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge * 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). (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 1. The absence of time and date information in Campos’s notice to appear did not divest the immigration court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that the absence of time and date information in a notice to appear does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, and the filing of a subsequent notice that provides such information complies with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a)). Because Campos received a subsequent notice of hearing, the immigration court had jurisdiction over his case. 2. The BIA did not err in concluding that Campos is ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (absent changed or extraordinary circumstances, an application for asylum must be filed within one year of arrival in the United States). Campos argues that his Temporary Protected Status from 2001 until 2008 is an “extraordinary circumstance[]” justifying his untimely application. See 8 C.F.R. 1 Campos does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection or cancellation of removal. Therefore, even construing his claims liberally, see Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 980 (9th Cir. 2022), he has forfeited those claims, Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv) (maintaining Temporary Protected Status may be an extraordinary circumstance, but the applicant must file the application “within a reasonable period given those circumstances”). But Campos’s status from 2001 to 2008 does not explain his failure to file his asylum application before he applied for and received Temporary Protected Status. The BIA noted that Campos, who entered the United States in 1993, did not file his asylum application until 2000, twenty-four months after the one-year rule’s effective date of April 1998, and before he applied for Temporary Protected Status.2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that given this delay, Campos did not file his application within “a reasonable time.” See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals