Case: 22-65, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER GAVARRETE NAVARRO, No. 22-65 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-298-578 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 14, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,** District Judge. Javier Gavarrete Navarro, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal pursuant to Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Gavarrete Navarro also * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. Case: 22-65, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 2 of 4 challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand the proceedings to the IJ. We review the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014); Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. 1. The BIA properly upheld the IJ’s denial of asylum. The BIA found that Gavarrete Navarro did not establish changed circumstances in Honduras that would render his asylum application timely filed, see 8 C.F.R. 1208.4(a), where he applied roughly three years after losing temporary protected status. We discern no error in that conclusion. We lack jurisdiction to consider Gavarrete Navarro’s argument that he is entitled to have his asylum application treated as timely pursuant to Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176, 1188 (W.D. Wash. 2018), because he failed to first present that argument to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 Gavarrete Navarro presents no argument challenging the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal based on extreme hardship to his U.S. citizen daughter. 2 22-65 Case: 22-65, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 3 of 4 2. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal pursuant to Section 241(b)(3) of the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). To be eligible for such relief, an applicant must show that it is more likely than …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals