NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 20 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Efren Robert Cardona-Perez, No. 21-412 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-407-028 v. MEMORANDUM * Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2023 ** Pasadena, California Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Efren Robert Cardona-Perez, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Cardona-Perez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We review de novo the BIA’s determinations on questions of law and mixed questions of law and * 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). fact. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part. I. The BIA did not err in denying Cardona-Perez’s asylum application for being untimely. An asylum applicant must file for asylum within one year of the applicant’s arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). “A late asylum application may be entertained if the applicant shows ‘changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.’” Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 980 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that changed circumstances do not excuse Cardona-Perez’s fifteen-year delay in filing for asylum. Although Cardona-Perez provided evidence of Guatemala’s circumstances in 2016, Cardona-Perez failed to present any evidence of the circumstances in Guatemala in 2002. Therefore, the evidence presented did not show a change in circumstances between 2002, when Cardona-Perez arrived in the United States, and 2017, when Cardona-Perez applied for asylum. 2 21-412 II. “To secure withholding of removal, a petitioner must demonstrate that his ‘life . . . would be threatened in that country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Cardona-Perez failed to establish that his life would be threatened if he returned to Guatemala. Cardona-Perez did not show past persecution in Guatemala and failed to show how the Guatemalan gang’s “vague threats” amount to a “clear probability of future persecution.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals