NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODRIGO MUNOZ VARELA, No. 19-71328 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-402-395 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 9, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District Judge. Rodrigo Munoz Varela petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 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). *** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. COA Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence review is an “extremely deferential” standard, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003)), which requires us to affirm the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary,” Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 1. Munoz Varela challenges the BIA’s conclusion that his asylum application was time-barred because he filed it in 2018, well over one year after he entered the United States in 2003. See, e.g., Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (9th Cir. 2008). Munoz Varela argues the one-year bar does not apply because he only learned of the risk of political persecution years after he left Mexico. Because he never specifies what circumstances changed, when he learned of those circumstances, or whether he acted promptly once he learned of them, the BIA properly rejected his argument that changed circumstances excused him from the one-year time bar. See id. Munoz Varela also argues that he suffers from medical conditions that 2 impaired his ability to learn of the allegedly changed conditions in Mexico, and that the one-year time bar does not apply to aliens who entered the country before 2005. However, Munoz Varela did not raise these arguments before the BIA, and therefore we do not have jurisdiction to consider them. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“A petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.”). 2. Munoz Varela argues the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s determination that he had not demonstrated a clear ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals