NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELVIN LOPEZ-CARRILO, AKA Nos. 15-73883 Jonathan Alva-Lopez, AKA Melvin 16-72390 Carrillo-Lopez, Agency No. A200-974-477 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Nelvin Lopez-Carrilo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from 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). decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review in 15-73883, and deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in 16-73490. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum as time-barred, where the record reflects Lopez-Carrilo filed his application more than one year after his most recent entry into the United States and where he did not demonstrate he met an exception to the time-bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (asylum application must be filed within one year of arrival in the United States, unless the alien can demonstrate changed circumstances affecting eligibility or extraordinary circumstances relating to the filing delay); Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.”). 2 15-73883/16-72390 The BIA did not err in finding that Lopez-Carrilo did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group). The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals