NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS JIMENEZ HERNANDEZ, No. 22-540 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-236-884 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 7, 2023 ** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Jimenez Hernandez (Jimenez), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. * 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). Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). “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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Jimenez has not shown that he is entitled to asylum. “To qualify for asylum, an alien must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien’s application for asylum was ‘filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.’” Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)). An alien can obtain an exemption from the 1-year time bar by showing either (1) “changed circumstances” affecting his eligibility or (2) “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). In such cases, the alien must still “file an asylum application within a reasonable period.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5). Jimenez last entered the United States in 2010 and filed his asylum application in 2018. Jimenez argued before the IJ that his circumstances materially changed in 2012 and 2013, but the IJ concluded that Jimenez’s five- year delay in applying for asylum was not reasonable. Jimenez points to no error in this determination and has therefore waived any challenge to it. Corro- Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived). On appeal to the BIA, Jimenez argued that his father’s 2018 filing of a 2 “writ of amparo” and Jimenez’s 2018 marriage created materially changed circumstances. The BIA deemed these arguments waived because they were not raised to the IJ, a point the government reiterates in response to the petition for review. We decline to consider this unexhausted claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1112–13 (2023). And to the extent Jimenez disputes the agency’s factual determinations regarding his untimely asylum application, we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals