NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERVASIO PASCUAL CRISTOBAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 23-497

Agency No.

A216-268-579

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Gervasio Pascual Cristobal, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro 

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, 

* 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).

FILED

JAN 24 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-497

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 agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 

1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Id. We deny the 

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Pascual Cristobal

established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum 

application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en 

banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related 

to the one-year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and 

extraordinary circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2022) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Pascual Cristobal’s contention regarding an exception 

to the untimely asylum application based on a class action settlement agreement is 

not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also 

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a 

non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Thus, Pascual Cristobal’s asylum claim 

fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pascual 
3 23-497

Cristobal failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a 

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 

applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see 

also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining 

that the nexus standard for withholding of removal is “a reason” in contrast to the 

“one central reason” standard for asylum). Thus, Pascual Cristobal’s withholding 

of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be 

‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public 

official or other person acting in an official capacity’” (internal citation omitted)). 

To the extent Pascual Cristobal asserts the agency applied the incorrect legal 

standards to his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, this 

claim is unsupported by the record. 

Pascual Cristobal’s request to correct the briefing deadlines, included in 

Docket Entry No. 13, is denied as moot.
4 23-497

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.