N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YU GUO, Pe t i tione r, v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70291 Age n c y No. A201-191-795 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge . 

# F IL ED DEC 18 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge C aram

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.Pe titione r, Yu Guo, a nat ive an d c itiz e n of C hina , pe t itions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of a pplic at ion for a sy lum

and re lie f from re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. TheB IA dism isse d his a

pplic a tion a s untim e ly

be c a use Pe titione r did not filehis a pplic a tion within one -y e ar a fte r arriving in this c ountry a s re quire d by

8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ); 8 C . F.R . § 1208.4(a)(2), a nd fa ile d to show c ha

n ge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s tha t would e xc use his untime line s s. For the re a sons sta te d be l ow, we de ny the pe tition. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t e x tra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s do not justify

Pe titione r’ s untim e ly

filing. Extra o rdina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s inc lude m a inta ining la wful sta tus until a re a sona ble pe riod be fore filing for a s y lum . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv). Pe titione r’ s la wful sta t us e n de d whe n he droppe d out of sc hool in M arc h, 2009, not when Im m igration a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e n t (“ IC E ’ ) notifie d him of his re m ova

bility for doing so in June , 2011. Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th C ir. 2008) (stude nt who drops of out sc hool lose s F-1 sta tus a s of tha

t da te ). Pe titione r’ s de la

y in a pply ing for a s y lum

ne arly four y e ars a fte r arriving in the Unite d State s, a

nd 25 m onths a fte r he stoppe d atte nding sc hool, without a ny e xpla nation, is unre a sona

ble . Se e id . at 1050 (wa iting 22-m onths a fte r fa iling to e nroll in sc h o ol to file for a sy lum 1 6 - 7 0 2 9 1 2unre a s ona

ble ); Husy e v

v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th C ir. 2008) (wa iting 364-da y s a fte r e nd of la

wful sta tus to a pply for a sy l um

unre a sona

ble and re c o gniz ing tha

t “ re a sona ble pe riod” for filing would not ordina rily e x c e e d six m onths a fte r e nd of la

w ful sta tus). 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Pe titione r’ s untim e l ine ss is not e xc use d unde r the “ c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s” e xc e ption. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4). Shortly be fore c om ing to the Unite d State s in 2007, Pe titione r’ s high sc hool te a c he r le c ture d him and a sm a ll group of his c la ssm ate s on C hristia nity , whic h le d to his a

rre s t a nd brie f de te ntion until his m

othe r pa id a

fine and se c ure d his re le a se . During this enc ounte r with polic e , Pe titione r wa s a c c use d of ta king pa rt in a nti-gove rnm e nt a c tivitie s a nd sla ppe d twic e . In Nove m

be r, 2008, a

nd Fe b ruary , 2009, Pe titione r m a ile d re ligious m a te ria l s ba c k to tha

t te a c he r in C hina . In M a rc h, 2009, Pe titione r’ s m othe r told him tha t the polic e ha d c om e to he r and told he r that if he re turne d to C hina he would be arre ste d

for se nding a

nti-gove rnm e nt m a te ria ls. The polic e ne ve r c onta c te d he r a ga in, but in Novem b e r, 2010, Pe t itione r’ s m o the r we nt to thepolic e of he r own a c c ord a

nd wa s told his c a se wa s still open. She told him tha t if he re turne d to C hina , he would be arre s te d.

1 6 - 7 0 2 9 1 3Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t his m othe r’ s visit to the

polic e in Nove m

be r, 2010 doe s not a

m ount to “ c h ange d

c irc um sta

nc e s” whic h m ate ria l ly

a ffe c te d Pe titione r’ s e ligibility for a s y lum . The B IA c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the Nove m

be r, 2010 polic e visit instiga te d by his m othe r wa s a m e re c ontinua

t ion of the M arc h, 2009 polic e visit whic h put Pe t itione r on notic e that he wa s subje c t to a

rre st for m a iling re ligious ma t e ria ls if he re turne d to C hina . Pe titione r’ s situa

tion is m a rke dly distinguisha

ble from V

a hora v . Holde r , 641 F.3d 1038, 1043-44 (9th C ir. 2011), whe re we found c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s in India e xiste d whic h e xc u se d pe titione r’ s untim e line ss be c a use de a dly

riots took plac e a fte r Pe titione r le ft the c ountry , his house and fa rm house we re burne d down, one brothe r wa s a

rre s te d a nd ha d not be e n se e n sinc e , an d a nothe r brothe r disa

ppe are d a fte r polic e thre ate ne d to a rre st him . B y c ontra st, Pe titione r c an point to no c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions in China , nor a ny re pe rc ussions to his fa

m ily m e m

be rs, that would e xc use his fa ilure to tim e ly file for a sy lum . 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Pe titione r is not e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l be c a

use he fa ile d to prove tha t it is more like ly tha n not tha t he would be subje c t to pe rse c ution ba se d on prote c te d sta tus if re m ove d to C hina . B e c a

use Pe titione r on a

p pe a l to the B IA did not a rgue tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d in C hina

and ha s not de m onstra

te d pa st pe rse c ution, Pe titione r is 1 6 - 7 0 2 9 1 4not e ntitle d to a pre sum ption tha t his lifeor fre e dom

would be thre a te ne d in the future . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(1). Ra the r, he m ust e sta blish a c le ar proba

bility of future pe rse c ution in C hina . Se e Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010); Al-Harbi v . I.N . S . , 242 F.3d 882, 890-91 (9th C i r. 2001). Pe titione r ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t his c o nve rsion to C hristia n ity while in the Unite d State s, or his m a iling of re ligious m a te ria ls to C hina in 2008 a nd 2009, puts him

at risk for pe rse c ution upon re m ova l. Sinc e e arly 2009, thepolic e have not sought out a ny of Pe titione r’ s re l a tive s se e king ne ws of his re turn or indic a ting a ny inte ntion of arre sting him . His m othe r’ s own inquiry to the polic e in Nove m

be r, 2010, whe re she le arne d his c a se wa s not c lose d, doe s not sugge st the re is a c le ar proba bility that C hine se a

uthoritie s are looking for him and would pe rse c ute him now. Se e Gu v . Gonzale

s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021-22 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding C hine s e C hristia n did not ha ve a we ll-founde d fe ar of future prose c ution e v e n whe re a frie nd told him that a uthoritie s ha d

c om e to look for him , and polic e visite d his hom e and told his wife to a sk him

ba c k for que stioning). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.