NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DESIDERIA SAN LORENZO CULANAG,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70043 Agency No. A099

- 800

- 446

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2019 ** Portland, Oregon Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Desideria San Lorenzo Culanag, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order, dismissing her appeal from the i mmigration j udge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her asylum and withhol ding from removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* 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

JUL 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

§ 1252 , and w e grant the petition

. 1. The BIA erred in concluding that Culanag did not qualify for the “changed circumstances” exception to the one

- year filing deadline for asylum applications. A n a sylum applicant must “demonstrate[] by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the [ applicant ]’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is a statutory exception to the one

- year bar, however, if the applicant “demonstrates

. . . the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D) . T he applicant must also demonstrate that she “file[d] an asylum applicati on within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(ii).
T he BIA incorrectly determined that the operative changed circumstances
could be only when the recent string of violence against Culanag’s family “began”
in 2007 , and thus it was unreasonable for Culanag to wait until 2014 to file her asylum application

. We have interpreted the changed circumstances exception broadly, and new events offering further evid ence of an applicant’s eligibility for asylum may suffice

. See Singh v. Holder , 656 F.3d 1047, 105 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] petitioner might still qualify for the changed circumstances exception even if the relevant circumstances do not create a new basis of persecution but simply provide further evidence of the type of persecution already suffered.”); Va hora v.3

Holder , 641 F.3d 1038, 10 44

- 4 5 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that this exception “w[as] intended to be broad ” and does not “preclude an individual who has always feared persecution from seeking asylum because the risk of that persecution increases”). T he BIA failed even to mention attacks on Culanag’s family that
occurred in 2013 in retaliation for her brother

- in

- law’s work as the head of the
local drug and narcotics police unit. Specifically, Culanag credibly testified about
at least three incident s in 2013

— the murder of her second cousin, a death threat to her nephew, and multiple death threats to her brother

- in

- law and sister.
2. The BIA also failed to discuss the 2013 attacks in concluding that Culanag was ineligible for withholding of removal b ecause she could reasonably relocate within the Philippines to avoid future harm

. S ee 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2); Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating the standard of review). By overlooking these recent events, the BIA did not sufficiently address whether it would be reasonable to expect her to relocate to
Manila. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 1206, 121 5 (9th Cir. 2004) ( explaining
that the agency must “take into account the numerous factors for determining reasonableness outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3) , ” including “ whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure”). Accordingly, we g rant the petition for review . W e remand to the BIA to4

address whether those 2013 events constitute “changed circumstances” for purposes of the exception to the one

- year bar for asylum applications . If so, the
BIA may make an “individualized determination []” of whether Culanag filed her asylum application within a reasonable period of time after these incidents, in light of “all the factual circumstances of the case.” Al Ramahi v. Holder , 725 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The BIA mu st also determine the impact, if any, of those 2013 events on the reasonableness of internal relocation as it relates to Culanag’s application for withholding from removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED ; REMANDED.