NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIHUA CHEN, No. 14-70359 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-575-456 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Lihua Chen is a native and citizen of China. He petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an order by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review. 1. An application for asylum is untimely if not filed within one year of an alien’s arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Chen arrived in Guam in April 2009 and filed his asylum application in July 2011. His late filing can be excused if there are “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). If extraordinary circumstances are established, Chen also “must then demonstrate that the asylum application was filed within a ‘reasonable period given those circumstances.’” Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chen “did not establish that he filed his asylum application within a reasonable period under the circumstances.” Chen’s reliance on representations from his employer that his original status would be extended was not reasonable after April 2010, when the employer’s extension request was denied. Chen’s passport stated that his work status expired in October 2009, and a preamble to the regulation in place at the time, Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2011), cautioned that “waiting six months or longer after expiration or termination of status would not be considered reasonable.” Asylum Procedures, 65 Fed. Reg. 76121, 76124 (Dec. 6, 2000). 2. The BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations was supported by substantial evidence. Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, an “IJ may base 2 an adverse credibility determination on any relevant factor that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, can reasonably be said to have a ‘bearing on a petitioner’s veracity.’” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)). The BIA accurately noted that although Chen had testified “that he was present and had a confrontation with officials when they took his wife away during her third pregnancy, his written statement did not state that he encountered family officials at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals