NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL ARMANDO BATZ PACHECO, No. 17-70945 aka Gilbert Garcia Ventura Agency No. A205-721-169 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Miguel Armando Batz Pacheco, a.k.a. Gilbert Garcia Ventura, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) denial of his asylum application and requests for withholding of * 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). removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Before us, Batz Pacheco raises four issues. He asserts that the agency erred (1) in not finding an exception to the one-year filing deadline for an asylum application; (2) in holding that he did not testify credibly; (3) in determining that he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground; and (4) in finding that he had not established eligibility for relief under the CAT. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we dismiss in part and deny in part. 1. Batz Pacheco has not shown that the BIA erred in upholding the finding by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely. An asylum application must be filed within a year of a noncitizen’s entry into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), unless the applicant shows “either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Batz Pacheco entered the United States in 2006 and did not file his application for asylum until 2014. The agency did not credit Batz Pacheco’s evidence concerning his claim of changed circumstances. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of relief from the one-year time limit based on its resolution of this disputed issue of fact. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 2 649–54 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), review of changed circumstances determinations is limited to questions of law, including the application of law to undisputed facts); see also Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623 (2022) (reaffirming that “judicial review of factfinding is unavailable” under § 1252(a)(2)(D)). We therefore dismiss this aspect of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Batz Pacheco’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not persuasive. We review the agency’s “factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bassene v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals