NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN RUBEN HUANTE MARTINEZ, No. 19-70096 AKA Juan Ruben Huante, Agency No. A205-318-125 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Juan Ruben Huante Martinez (Petitioner) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we deny the petition. 1. Petitioner’s application for asylum is untimely and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he did not demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” excusing his delay. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013).1 Petitioner failed to provide any evidence beyond vaguely asserting before the BIA “that at an unknown time he spoke with an unknown person” who gave him incorrect advice on his eligibility for asylum, and thus he declined to file for asylum until fourteen years had passed after he entered the United States in 2000. Before this court, Petitioner again asserted only that “individuals [he] believed to be attorneys” told him he could not file for asylum. Given Petitioner’s failure to provide the “pertinent information regarding the timing of the encounter” or “the circumstances of the encounter,” substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner cannot establish justified reliance on the deficient 1 The BIA correctly determined Petitioner waived any “challenge [to] the [IJ]’s determination that … his untimely filing should be excused on the basis of changed circumstances,” thus we do not have jurisdiction to address his attempt to make this argument before us on appeal. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907–08 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the [Board] constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”). 2 advice. See Al Ramahi, 725 F.3d at 1138–39; Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008).2 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground sufficient for either asylum3 or withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the BIA’s denial of applications for asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence); see Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–60 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals