GOMEZ ROSALES v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-05No. No. 15-70459

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of the appeal, finding substantial evidence supported the agency's determinations that the applicant failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely asylum filing and failed to establish eligibility for relief based on protected-ground persecution.

Felipe Gomez-Rosales, a Mexican citizen, sought court review of a decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge had rejected his applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that denial. Gomez-Rosales argued that his case should qualify for relief despite procedural delays and risk of persecution upon return to Mexico.

The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the agency's findings on two key points: whether Gomez-Rosales had demonstrated extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse the late filing of his asylum application, and whether he had proven he would face persecution based on a protected ground such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. On both questions, the court found the agency's reasoning was grounded in sufficient evidence from the record. The court also noted that Gomez-Rosales did not challenge the denial of his Convention Against Torture claim in his appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether extraordinary or materially changed circumstances excused untimely asylum application filing
Whether applicant established persecution on account of a protected ground
Standard of review for agency factual findings in asylum proceedings

Procedural posture

Gomez-Rosales petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Felipe Gomez-Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Gomez-Rosales failed to establish extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in filing or materially changed circumstances affecting his eligibility for asylum that might excuse the untimeliness of his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for substantial evidence a changed-circumstances determination based on undisputed facts); see also Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.”).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agencys conclusion that Gomez-Rosales failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicants claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly situated family members continue to live in the country without incident․”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicants] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Gomez-Rosaless withholding of removal claim fails.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Gomez-Rosales did not challenge the denial of his application for CAT protection before the BIA or this court.