Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60828 May 12, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Francisco Javier Gonzales, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 238 077 Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Francisco Javier Gonzales, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying his applications for: asylum; withholding of removal; and protection under the Convention Against * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 No. 19-60828 Torture (CAT). He contends: the IJ erred in finding his asylum application untimely; the BIA erred in denying asylum and withholding of removal based on failure to establish any past harm and fear of future persecution by Honduran criminal gangs on account of his membership in a cognizable particular social group; and the BIA erred in finding he failed to show the gangs would torture him with the acquiescence, or willful blindness, of public officials. “On petition for review, we generally examine only the BIA decision and not that of the IJ.” Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549, 552 (5th Cir. 2016). On the other hand, to the extent the IJ’s ruling affects the BIA’s decision, we review it. Id. at 553 (citing Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007)). Decisions denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under such standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Regarding whether the IJ erred by finding his asylum application untimely, the application must be filed within one year following arrival in the United States, unless applicant qualifies for an exception, such as having previously applied for asylum, or can demonstrate “changed circumstances which materially affect[ed] the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application” within the one-year period. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). The IJ found Gonzales’ application untimely because it was filed eight years after he arrived in the United States; the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny asylum because, even if it was timely filed, Gonzales failed to establish his qualifying for asylum. In the light of Gonzales’ failing to file a timely asylum application, he may only receive his requested relief if he qualifies for an exception. 2 Case: 19-60828 Document: 00515858569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 No. 19-60828 Gonzales contends …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals