Court Opinion

ID: 9926168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 22:00:53.946862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.716343
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE RAMON HERRERA,                             No. 23-406
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A088-967-245
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     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.

      Jose Ramon Herrera, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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, withholding of

      *
             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).
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 Herrera 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)).

Thus, Herrera’s asylum claim fails.

      We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Herrera failed to establish

he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558

F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences, including two

beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past

persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir.

2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review

applies, where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Herrera

                                         2                                     23-406
failed to show a clear probability of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too

speculative”).

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

because Herrera 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 Nicaragua. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                    23-406