NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ANTONIO ARGUETA- No. 15-73792 CHAVARRIA, AKA Jose Argueta, Agency No. A201-174-433 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2019** San Diego, California Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Jose Antonio Argueta-Chavarria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not err in concluding that Argueta does not qualify for the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (stating that an asylum applicant must “demonstrate[] by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States”), 1158(a)(2)(D) (providing an exception to the one-year bar if the applicant “demonstrates . . . extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay”). Argueta argues that he qualifies for the exception because he did not know about the deadline and lacked the resources to become familiar with immigration law. However, ignorance of the law is insufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). And despite Argueta’s contention, Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), “did not purport to speak to the mens rea requirement of other federal statutes where willfulness is not an element of the crime.” United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir. 1992). 2. The BIA also did not err in determining that Argueta failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. For starters, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating 2 the standard of review). Argueta’s single beating by the Mara Salvatrucha gang and subsequent harassment and threats, while serious and regrettable, do not compel the conclusion that he suffered past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that harassment and “one incident of physical violence” are not “so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution,” especially where “there is no evidence indicating that the incident was officially sponsored”). Moreover, Argueta did not present sufficient evidence that he is a member of a particular social group comprised of “young men who have ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals