United States v. 2020-08-19 | 14-73958 | BYRON SOCOP-ASCENCION V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BYRON EDILO SOCOP-ASCENCION,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73958

Agency No. A200-823-582

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Byron Edilo Socop-Ascencion, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”).

*
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).
FILED

AUG 19 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 14-73958
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Socop-
Ascencion failed to establish extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in
filing or materially changed circumstances affecting his eligibility for asylum that
might excuse the untimeliness of his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Sumolong v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082-83 (9th Cir.
2013) (reviewing for substantial evidence a changed-circumstances determination
based on undisputed facts); Antonio-Martinez v. I.N.S., 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Socop-
Ascencion failed to establish that he 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”). Thus, Socop-
Ascencion’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Socop-Ascencion failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

3 14-73958
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.