Marco Palma-Bello v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCO ANTONIO PALMA-BELLO, No. 14-70017 15-70146 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-353-894 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM * General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: LINN,*** BERZON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. I The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) properly dismissed Marco * 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 Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 of 7 Palma-Bello’s (“Palma-Bello”) appeal from the denial of Palma-Bello’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). A Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that neither changed nor extraordinary circumstances justify Palma-Bello’s late-filed asylum application. All asylum applications must be filed within one year of the applicant’s most recent entry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Palma-Bello filed his asylum application in 2013, several years after his most recent entry into the United States in 2007. His filing was well after the one-year deadline set forth in the statute. Late filings may nevertheless be considered due to “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Palma-Bello, however, has failed to identify any “changed circumstances” or other “extraordinary circumstances” that would excuse his late filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i) (defining “changed circumstances”). Palma-Bello contends that his failure to file the application within the one- year period was the result of “[s]erious illness or mental or physical disability, including any effects of persecution or violent harm suffered in [1998 and 2007]” 3 of 7 and that his delay was otherwise reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). But apart from attorney argument, Palma-Bello failed to produce any evidence to connect the persecution and harm he suffered in 1998 and 2007 with the delay in filing, or to support his contention that he suffered any illness or mental or psychological disability from those events. Moreover, Palma-Bello has not demonstrated that his nearly six-year delay in filing the asylum application was reasonable. Palma-Bello’s only evidence regarding the reasons for his delay was his testimony that he was already in deportation proceedings, and that he believed—incorrectly—that only Central Americans and not Mexicans were eligible for asylum. These reasons are manifestly inadequate. B Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Palma-Bello failed to show eligibility for withholding of removal. An applicant may be eligible for withholding of removal by showing that “his or her life or freedom would be ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals