NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHAN FLORES FLORES, No. 19-73091 Petitioner, Agency No. A095 804 801 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: R. NELSON and BADE, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** District Judge. Johan Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s * 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 Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. (“IJ”) order denying Flores’ application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Flores challenges the BIA’s and IJ’s (collectively, “Agency”) determinations that he did not establish “changed circumstances” to explain the lateness of his petition. Flores also challenges the Agency’s determination that he had not sufficiently established past or future persecution on the basis of a protected ground, and that he would not face torture due to the instigation or acquiescence of the Honduran Government. Flores also moves to remand to the Agency for consideration of his Motion to Terminate Proceedings based on a claim of a defective notice of hearing. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition and the motion to remand. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). Flores filed his petition for asylum more than a year after he entered the United States, and thus outside the period allowed by statute. 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Agency found that Flores did not establish any changed circumstances that would constitute an exception to that requirement. The Agency held that Flores had not shown a change in circumstances from when he lived in Honduras and when he filed his petition for asylum, or that he filed his application “within a reasonable period” after any such changed circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). The Agency ruled that the instances of violence that Flores cited — “the threat of his cousin with a machete in 2004 and the shooting of another cousin in 2006 by gang members” — did not reflect a change in the conditions that had prevailed in Honduras. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination. The Agency provided numerous “specific and cogent reasons,” noting specific testimony and Flores’ arguments. See Shrestha, 590 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals