Antonio Jimenez-Villanueva v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

JS/Panel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO JIMENEZ-VILLANUEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73234
Agency No. A213-078-421
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Jimenez-Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss
* 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 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
the petition as to asylum for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny the petition as to
withholding of removal and CAT relief.
1. We lack jurisdiction to review Jimenez-Villanueva’s asylum claim.
Jimenez-Villanueva argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s determination
that Jimenez-Villanueva had not established “extraordinary circumstances” to
excuse his failure to comply with the one-year filing deadline for asylum. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). We have jurisdiction to review an extraordinary
circumstances determination only with regard to constitutional claims and
questions of law, including mixed questions of law and fact involving the
application of law to undisputed facts. Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1133–
34 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, Jimenez-Villanueva argues on appeal that his mental
health diagnosis resulted in his failure to file a timely application, but he has also
argued that his belated discovery of the asylum process caused his failure to file
within a year of arrival. The Government continues to argue that the latter was the
actual reason for Jimenez-Villanueva’s delay. Because the BIA’s extraordinary
circumstances determination does not rest upon undisputed facts, we lack
jurisdiction to review Jimenez-Villanueva’s asylum claim. Id. (dismissing a
petition challenging the BIA’s extraordinary circumstances determination for lack
of jurisdiction because the underlying facts were disputed).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Jimenez-

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Villanueva’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal. Although
applicants for withholding of removal must meet a less demanding nexus standard
than for asylum, where, as here, “the BIA adopt[s] the IJ’s finding of no nexus”
between the harm and the alleged protected ground(s), the outcome is the same for
both forms of relief. Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (emphasis in
original). Even if we assume that Jimenez-Villanueva’s proposed social group of
“youth in Mexico, ages 12 to 20, who are forced to collaborate with the drug
cartels” is cognizable, Jimenez-Villanueva has long since aged out of that social
group. Further, even if we assume that Jimenez-Villanueva manifested an anti-
gang political opinion by refusing to join the Knights Templar, the record does not
compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Jimenez-Villanueva
would be persecuted by the Knights Templar on account of a protected ground, as
Jimenez-Villanueva’s own submitted evidence states that the gang no longer exists.
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Jimenez-
Villanueva’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Jimenez-Villanueva argues
that members of the Knights Templar tortured him, and that “[a]t this time in
Mexico, one can hardly discern between the government and a criminal.” The
record does not compel the conclusion that Jimenez-Villanueva would more likely
than not be tortured with the government’s involvement or acquiescence if he
returned to Mexico, especially when his own evidence states that the gang no

-- 3 of 4 --

4
longer exists. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not
particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet this standard.”).
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

-- 4 of 4 --