N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

IVAN M ENDEZ R O DAS, Pe titione r,
v. LOR ETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t
. Nos. 12-73227, 13-70904 Age n c y No. A089-859-407

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d M a rc h 16, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a nd N.R

. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd KOR M AN, *** Distri ct J u dge

. Iva n M e nde z R oda s pe tition s f o r re vie w o f t

he de c ision of the B oa

rd of Im m i gra tion App ea ls (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing a n im m igra tion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his



# FIL ED
MAR 28 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 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 Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.a

pplic a tions for e ligibility for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d p rote c tion unde r the C onve ntion a ga i nst T orture (“ C AT” ). R oda s a lso a rgu es tha t the B IA e rre d in de c lining to rule on his bond a nd c ustody issue s during the m e rits a ppe a ls of the IJ’ s orde r of re m ova l. Se pa

ra t e ly , R oda s pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his

m otion for re c onside ra tion. W e de ny i n pa r t an d d i s m iss in pa

rt the se pe titions for

re vie w. 1. R oda s did not file his a sy lum a pplic a tion until thirte e n year s af t er a rriving in t he Unite d Sta te s. An a s y lum a pplic a tion m

ust be file d “ within 1 y e a r a fte r the da te of the a lie n’ s a rriva l in the Unite d Sta te s” subje c t to c e rta in lim ite d e xc e ptions not

re le va nt he re . 8 U.S.C

. § 1158(a )(2)(B ). T h is one -y e a r p e riod be gins o n “ t he da te of the a lie n’ s la s t a rriva l in the Unite d Sta te s or A pril 1, 1997, whic he ve r is la te r.” 8 C .F.R

. § 1208.4(a )(2)(ii). R oda s c la im s tha t, b e c a u se he m a na ge d to som e how a void inspe c tion whe n he c rosse d the borde r, h e s hould not b e de e m e d to ha ve e ve r a rrive d in the Unite d Sta t e s. This c la i m is w i t h o u t m er it. An a lie n who e nte rs the Unite d Sta t e s “ whe the r or not a t a de signa te d port of a rriva l” ha s a rrive d for a s y lum purpose s. 8 U.S.C

. § 1158(a )(1); se e also Matte r of F-P-R , 24 I& N De c . 681, 6 83 (B IA 2008) (de fining “ la st a

rriva l” a s a n “ a lie n’ s m ost re c e nt c o m ing or c rossing into the Unite d Sta t e s a fte r ha ving tra ve l e d from som e whe re outside of the c ountry ” ). Thus, R oda s’ s
a sy lum a pplic a tion wa s untim e ly

. 22. Eve n if Ro d as ha d tim e ly file d his a sy l um a pplic a tion, he would still be ine l igible for a sy l um . R oda s c la im s tha t Gua te m a la pe rse c ute s rura l fa rm e rs by fa iling to provide t

he m with suffic ie nt e c onom ic a ssista nc e . Any e c onom ic ha

rdship tha t he

m a y suffe r due to G ua te m a la ’ s e c onom ic p olic ie s doe s not c onstitute pe rse c ution. Se e Gormle y v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th C ir. 2 0 0 4). Inde e d, ba se d o n R oda s’ s te stim ony , t

he IJ c ould h a ve re a sona b ly c on c lude d tha t the s e e c onom ic p o l i ci es i m

pa c te d a ll Gua te m a la

n c itiz e n s ra the r tha

n j ust rura l fa rm e rs. M ore ove r, be c a use R oda s fa ile d to de m onstra te a we ll-founde d fe a r o f p er se c ution, he c a nnot

sa tisfy the m ore stringe n t re quire m e nts to be e ligible for w i thholding of re m ova l. Se e Al-Haribi v . I.N

. S. , 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th C ir. 2001). 3. R oda s did not e sta

blish e ligibility for prote c tion unde r the C AT b e c a use a ny
e c onom ic ha

rdship tha t he m a y fa c e if re t urne d to Gua te m a l a would n o t c onstitute torture , whic h is lim ite d to “ e xtre m e form [s] of c rue l a nd inhum a n tre a tm e nt.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a )(2). 4. R oda s a lso a sks tha t the B IA be orde re d to se t bond ra the r t ha n re quiring him t o re port t o Im

m igra tion a nd C ustom s Enforc e m e nt a s we ll a s t he Inte n s i v e Supe rvision Appe a ra

nc e Progra m . Our j urisdic tion to e nte rta in dire c t a ppe a ls from the B IA i s c onfine d to a “ fina l orde r of re m ova l.” 8 U.S.C

. § 1252(a ). W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to re solve this issue be c a use bond a nd c ustody m a tte rs a re tre a te d a s
3“ se pa

ra t e a nd a pa rt from

. . . a ny d e porta

t i o n or re m ova l he a

ring or proc e e ding.” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.19(d); se e 8 U.S.C

. § 1252(b)(9). 5. W e re je c t R oda s’ s a

ppe a l from the B IA ’s d enia l of his m otion for

re c o nside ra tion be c a

use it sim ply re pe a ts the issue s ra ise d in his origina l a ppe a l. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

4