Court Opinion

ID: 9926463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 20:01:05.370978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.740587
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERVASIO PASCUAL CRISTOBAL,                     No. 23-497
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A216-268-579
 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.

      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).
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

                                         2                                    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.

                                          3                                     23-497
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                4                                   23-497