Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Milton Eduardo Rodas QUEZADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Milton Eduardo Rodas Quezada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Rodas Quezada failed to establish extraordinary circumstances so as to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). We do not address Rodas Quezada’s contention as to changed circumstances because the agency did not address it. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Rodas Quezada’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodas Quezada did not sufficiently corroborate his claims. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s corroborative evidence satisfied his burden of proof). We reject Rodas Quezada’s contention that the REAL ID Act does not apply to his application for relief. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-13, 19 Stat. 231 (2005) (REAL ID Act amendments apply to applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief made on or after the effective date of enactment, May 11, 2005). Thus we deny the petition for review as to Rodas Quezada’s withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodas Quezada 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 El Salvador. See Aden, 589 F.3d at 1047.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13-70568
Decided: March 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)