NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS BALDERRAMA, AKA Carlos No. 19-71184 Balderrama Ramirez, Agency No. A206-516-632 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, HIGGINSON,*** and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Carlos Balderrama, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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. We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). Under the substantial evidence standard, we affirm the BIA’s decision unless compelled to conclude to the contrary. Id. 1. The BIA did not err by concluding that changed or extraordinary circumstances did not justify the delayed filing of Balderrama’s asylum application beyond the one-year deadline and that therefore the application is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). (a) Although Balderrama stated in his asylum application that his delayed filing was due in part to increased levels of crime in Mexico, he did not make that argument before the BIA and therefore it has not been properly exhausted. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that a petitioner exhausts “only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA”). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review that specific claim. Id. (b) Balderrama also argues that changes in his personal circumstances that increase his risk of persecution justify his delayed application. Specifically, Balderrama claims that he will now be perceived by those in Mexico as having 2 wealth and ties to the United States because, while living in the United States for many years, Balderrama would send money home to his mother in Mexico. The BIA did not err in rejecting this argument. Indeed, as discussed by both the IJ and the BIA, Balderrama has presented no evidence that he has been threatened since 1995, or that his mother or family has been threatened at all, for any reason, let alone because of Balderrama’s perceived wealth or ties to the United States. See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the petitioner demonstrated changed circumstances in part because he presented evidence …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals