Court Opinion

ID: 9379927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 18:00:35.250354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.015288
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 16 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 Mansour Yousef Suleiman Ramadneh,               No. 21-872

                Petitioner,                      Agency No.      A216-554-698

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
 General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted March 13, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

        Mansour Yousef Suleiman Ramadneh, a native and citizen of Jordan,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny

the petition.

        *
            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).
      We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Taslimi v. Holder, 590

F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, the Board “expressed agreement

with the reasoning of the [immigration judge],” we review both decisions.

Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We review the agency’s

findings of fact for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de

novo. Id.

      Although an application for asylum must generally be filed within one

year of the applicant’s arrival in the United States, an exception is available

when “changed circumstances . . . materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for

asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Under that exception, “[t]he applicant shall

file an asylum application within a reasonable period given those ‘changed

circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). Ramadneh entered the United

States in May 2014, but he did not apply for asylum until March 2020.

      Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the changed

circumstances that materially affected Ramadneh’s eligibility for asylum

occurred in May 2018, when he told his family that he had decided to become a

Christian, and, in response, his brother threatened to kill him. Substantial

evidence also supports the Board’s determination that it was unreasonable for

Ramadneh to wait nearly two years after that change in circumstances to file for

asylum. Whether a period of delay is reasonable depends on the “particular

circumstances” of each case. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1058–59 (9th

Cir. 2009). Ramadneh argues that his wait was reasonable because he thought

                                         2                                     21-872
that conversion required a longer process to become an “actual member of the

Christian church.” Supporting that argument, Ramadneh cites Taslimi, in which

an applicant waited seven months after her religious conversion to apply for

asylum because she wanted “to be sure of the sincerity of her faith.” 590 F.3d at

988. We held that the delay in Taslimi was reasonable, but Ramadneh’s

situation is different. Ramadneh waited much longer than seven months, and

even if he believed that his conversion process was not entirely complete, he

still considered himself a Christian, and the threats from his brother made him

aware that he already faced danger at home because of his faith. He also failed

to submit evidence that he took steps to complete his conversion during this

time.

        The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied.

        PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                  21-872