Gervasio Pascual Cristobal v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERVASIO PASCUAL CRISTOBAL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-497
Agency No.
A216-268-579
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gervasio Pascual Cristobal, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-497
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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Id. We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Pascual Cristobal
established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum
application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en
banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related
to the one-year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and
extraordinary circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.
2022) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Pascual Cristobal’s contention regarding an exception
to the untimely asylum application based on a class action settlement agreement is
not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a
non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule). Thus, Pascual Cristobal’s asylum claim
fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pascual

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-497
Cristobal failed to establish he was or 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”); see
also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining
that the nexus standard for withholding of removal is “a reason” in contrast to the
“one central reason” standard for asylum). Thus, Pascual Cristobal’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because petitioner 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 Guatemala. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be
‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity’” (internal citation omitted)).
To the extent Pascual Cristobal asserts the agency applied the incorrect legal
standards to his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, this
claim is unsupported by the record.
Pascual Cristobal’s request to correct the briefing deadlines, included in
Docket Entry No. 13, is denied as moot.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-497
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --