N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GUADALUPE SONIA R ODR IGUEZ DOM INGUEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73586 Age n c y No. A095-299-317 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 June 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R AW LINSON a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s a nd EATON, *** Se nior Inte rnationa l Tra de Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 R ic ha rd K. Ea ton, Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.Gua da lupe Sonia R odrigue z Dom ingue z (“ R o drigue z ” ), a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum
. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), an d we de ny R odrigue z ’ s pe tition for re vie w. R odrigue z first e nte re d the Unite d S tate s in 1989 a s a non-im m igra nt visa visitor with a

uthoriz at ion to re m a in in theUnite d S tate s for a te m pora ry pe riod not to e x c e e d M a

rc h 1 1, 1992. Shefile d the a sy l um a pplic ation a

t issue he re in 2007. An a l ie n m

ust file an a sy lum

a pplic ation within one

y e ar of he r arriva l into the Unite d S t at e s. 8 U.S.C . § 1 158(a )(2)(B ). A la te -file d a p plic ation m ay be e xc use d if the a lie n de m onstra

te s “ e xtra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” tha t a re “ dire c tly

re l ate d to the fa ilure to m e e t the 1-y e ar de a dline . . . a s long a s the a lie n file d the a

p plic ation within a re a sona b le pe riod give n those c i rc um sta nc e s.” 8 C . F . R . § 208.4(a)(5). Although R

odrigue z ’ s e xpe rt te stifie d tha t R odrigue z “ wa s unde r going a low-gra de de pre s sion” re late d to R o drigue z ’ s c oping with her hom ose xua l orie ntation, this wa s not a se rious m e nta l disa

b i lity tha t would pre ve nt he r from

filing for a sy lum within oney e ar of he r a

rriva l in theUnite d

S t ate s. R o drigue z ’ s e xpe rt te stifie d tha t he “ c ould not pinpoint whe n the de pre ssion sta

rte d,” but sugge ste d tha

t it be ga n a s e arly a s R odrigue z ’ s c hildhood, a nd R odrigue z te s tifie d tha t she gra duate d from c olle ge in 1983 with honors, a n d in 1989 she

obta ine d a

visa to work in the Unite d 2S tate s . Sinc e no “ e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

n c e s ” e xiste d to e x c use R odrigue z ’ s untim e l y a sy lum a pplic ation, sheis sta

tutorily ba rre d from a sy lum e ligibility by 8 U.S.C . § 1 158(a )(2)(B ). 1 DE NIE D.

1 The B IA a l so found tha t R odrigue z “ fa ile d to prove tha t it wa s m ore like ly tha n not she would be torture d by or ‘ at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public of fic ia l or othe r pe rson a c t ing in of fic ia l c a pa c i ty ’ upon re m ova l to M e xic o .” In he r ope ning brie f, R odrigue z doe s not spe c ific a lly c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de nia l of he r C A T c la im . Thus, theissue is wa i ve d. S e e C astr o-Martine z v . Holde r , 674 F .3d 1073, 1082–83 (9th C ir . 201 1) (“ In his ope ning brie f, C a s tro did not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de nia l of his C A T c l a im and the re fore wa ive d it.” ). 3