NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR ARMANDO BERGANZA No. 18-71558 LINARES, AKA Joe Aguilar, AKA Hector Linares, Agency No. A094-203-154 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Hector Armando Berganza Linares, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We dismiss the petition in part, and deny it in part. 1. An application for asylum must be filed within one year of the applicant’s arrival in the United States, unless the applicant “demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General 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)(B), (D). While the court generally retains jurisdiction over colorable legal or constitutional claims, id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination regarding the existence of such circumstances. See id. § 1158(a)(3). Linares acknowledges that his application was not timely, but contends that threats allegedly made to Linares’s uncle in El Salvador shortly before Linares filed his application constituted changed circumstances that materially affected his eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The BIA rejected Linares’s argument and upheld the finding of the immigration judge (“IJ”) that Linares had not presented adequate evidence that these threats had actually occurred, or explained how they were connected to Linares in a way that would justify his untimely filing. Linares disputes the BIA’s findings, but fails to raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim on this point. The court thus lacks jurisdiction to decide this issue, and this portion of Linares’s petition is dismissed. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). 2 2. Linares next argues that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, claiming that the inconsistencies in his written and oral testimony identified by the IJ were immaterial. Credibility is assessed by “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, and the BIA’s findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016)). Here, the IJ’s findings ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals