785 Fed.Appx. 497 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-73421, Teran Soto v. Barr
|Citation:||785 Fed.Appx. 497|
|Party Name:||Juan Alonso TERAN SOTO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Myrna Alvarez, Attorney, Law Office of Myrna Alvarez, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 25, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted November 18, 2019 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Myrna Alvarez, Attorney, Law Office of Myrna Alvarez, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner
Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX1-562
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Alonso Teran Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and from the BIAs order denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review the BIAs denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Teran Soto established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Teran Sotos asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Teran Soto failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ("An [applicants] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP