Summary
The Ninth Circuit denied Christian Ruiz’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum on timeliness grounds, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and administrative closure. The court held that, in light of Wilkinson v. Garland, the extraordinary-circumstances determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) involves discretion but remains reviewable as a mixed question of law and fact. The court upheld the agency’s findings that Ruiz did not qualify for the asylum timeliness exception, failed to establish entitlement to withholding or CAT protection, and was not entitled to administrative closure.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that Ruiz failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).
- Whether the BIA erred in finding that Ruiz had not established extraordinary circumstances directly related to his thirteen-year delay in applying for asylum.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, including the finding that changed country conditions rebutted any presumption of future persecution.
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying administrative closure so Ruiz could pursue adjustment-related relief and an unlawful-presence waiver.
Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review the Attorney General's discretionary determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) when the determination presents a mixed question of law and fact.
- Ramadan v. Gonzales is clearly irreconcilable with Wilkinson to the extent Ramadan held that the extraordinary- or changed-circumstances determination is not discretionary, but Ramadan's conclusion that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the determination is reaffirmed on the basis that it presents a reviewable mixed question of law and fact.
- The BIA did not err in finding that Ruiz failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his thirteen-year delay in filing for asylum.
- The BIA did not err in denying withholding of removal and CAT protection because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Ruiz faced no sufficiently supported future risk in Nicaragua.
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying administrative closure because DHS presented a persuasive reason for the proceedings to continue, and Ruiz had an alternative procedure for seeking an unlawful-presence waiver after removal.
Key quotations
“We hold that Wilkinson is clearly irreconcilable with Ramadan’s holding that the “extraordinary circumstances” determination is not discretionary.” (6)
“Therefore, we hold that we have jurisdiction to review—with deference—the Attorney General’s “extraordinary circumstances” determination in § 1158(a)(2)(D) because, as we decided in Husyev, it presents a mixed question of law and fact.” (25)
“But an asylum applicant must explain the relationship between his trauma and the delay.” (26)
Factual background
Ruiz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, experienced severe anti-family persecution by Sandinista authorities during his childhood, including the killing of his father and threats against his family. He entered the United States in 1984, returned to Nicaragua in 1994, lived there for two years, and later made additional visits without suffering harm. After returning to the United States in 2006, Ruiz accrued multiple DUI convictions and was placed in removal proceedings; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection more than one year after his arrival. During the BIA proceedings, he married a U.S. citizen and sought administrative closure to pursue adjustment-related relief.
Procedural history
Ruiz was charged as removable for being unlawfully present in the United States and conceded removability. The immigration judge denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and later the BIA denied administrative closure and dismissed Ruiz's appeal. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review.